What will history say about Bush 20yrs from now?

[JEDI]

CNN

"A senior U.S. State Department diplomat caused embarrassment in Washington after telling Arab satellite network Al Jazeera that there is a strong possibility history will show the United States displayed "arrogance" and "stupidity" in its handling of the Iraq war."

My thoughts:
- worse President in modern history
- Was a lunatic for invading Iraq
- His military policy crippled the military for the next generation. (Who wants to join when the govt keeps breaking promises and sends you back again and again to Iraq, or extends your stay again and again.)
- Horrible foreign policy
- Horrible fisical domestic policy (record debt + tax cuts for his rich buddies)
- Was a puppet, a figurehead. He's not smart enuf to find his way out of a closet. He was willing to do anything to be Pres. The question is who is really pulling the strings?

Your thoughts?

 

[DealMonkey]

For Bush, "arrogance" and "stupidity" were his middle names. As commander and chief of the planet's mightiest military force he managed to bungle two wars and let those same two countries slip into chaos, anarchy and civil war. An utter failure in every possible sense of the word. Oh, but hey, the economy was pretty good. "Borrow and spend" turned out to be a fantastic short-term solution. Too bad it bankrupted us years later.

 

[Red Dawn]

I think he'll be known as the President who allowed a small group of extemists to hijack the Republican Party. To bad he shares the same name as his father who did a credible job.

 

[UberNeuman]

He'll be known for having the cleanest ranch in all of Texas....

 

[Moonbeam]

I don't know.

 

[kage69]

Puppet and figurehead pretty much sum it up.



The Cheney and Rumsfeld group needed a respected name which wouldn't engage in too much independent thought. W delivers in spades. A simple-minded ex-cheerleader who delegates responsibilty whenever possible and set records for vacation time in office doesn't strike me as an intellectual statesman and leader. He was selected because he is the type of disposable D-student politician real men of action use as a political 'sacrifical node.' Watch - he won't get a lucrative seminar career at universities when he's out of office, and he certainly won't be lauded as Reagan v2.0. At best, he'll be given a "think tank job" where he gets paid 6 figures to stay at home and clear brush while waiting for charges to be brought up against him. Many GOP members have already begun to distance themselves from him and his policies. Expect that to go into overdrive the next couple of years.


Hard-righters love to harp on about how Clinton disgraced the office with his carnal weaknesses, and that may be true, but I think it's a far bigger disgrace to fill the office with a mental midget who really acts as a rubberstamp machine, and who puts himself above the Constitution.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I don't know.

I don't either, but I have a feeling it won't be too kind.

 

[Caminetto]

Sorry, but there are too many Kool-aid republicans in this country for history to look too unkindly on GWB.
Many, many years down the road when something good finally happens in Iraq, the Republicans will be shouting that it was all the foresight of GWB.

However Red Dawn's statement, "the President who allowed a small group of extemists to hijack the Republican Party. To bad he shares the same name as his father who did a credible job" hit the nail squarely on the head.

 

[Pens1566]

Worst president since Grant. Ironically enough, also a drunk.

 

[CaptnKirk]

I don't beleive that there enough four-letter words to accurately describe the Presidency of George W. Bush for historical records.

 

[ebaycj]

History will say "GWB. What a douchebag."

 

[Craig234]

I think that history will judge him very harshly, but the focus will be less on him than the movement he represented, the group *still* somewhat unknown to many Americans who like to operate largely in secret, the members of Hillary's 'vast right-wing conspiracy'. They selected George W. Bush as a figurehead, just as he was for the Texas Rangers.

In once saw film of a news conference where Bush and one other man were giving a press conference as owners of the Texas Rangers. The other man had to leave the podium to take a phone call. The reporters asked Bush a basic question, and he stammered and said that he had to wait for the guy to return for any questions about the team.

Remember how he was willing to testify to the 9/11 commission only with Cheney there?

It's not about Bush. It's about the cabal who gained power by getting him elected, and the segment of the US public who was duped into voting for him, a few of whom now realize their error, most who do not.

I think history will more clearly identify some of the corrupt practices.

All fo this, unfortunately, depends on our returning to real democracy - we may not. Imagine a McCarthyism where McCarthy did not take on Eisenhower, where an Edward R. Murrow did not challenge him, where he continued to gain power and was elected president in 1960 and that because a long-term culture of the US.

The cabal in this country has an aim to gain one-party control for 50 years, jealous of the long democratic period beginning with FDR. They have much lined up to get it, from the money to the media. Their monopolistic partnership with the corporations, shutting out democrats, has given them a money advantage hard to deal with.

Whether they go to even further extremes in voter fraud remains to be seen, such as with the new electronic voting machine. So in 20 years, it may more resemble the way Stalin was viewed after 20 years in power - where most know it's a problem but you can't do a damn thing about it, and he has no shortage of supporters, 'spies', etc.

If we were willing as a nation for a few years under McCarthy to put up with blacklists of any suspected 'communist sympathizers', why would we not tolerate the right wing weakening their opposition with 'neutralizing' people with 'suspected terrorist sympathies'? I haven't seen a right-wing board yet where there aren't sympathies for such steps.

But I'm hoping our democracy is strong enough to throw the right out before they get that much power. Bush's 33% approval rating and Congress' 19% approval rating are a start. The problem is that the negative propaganda on democrats has most of the public ranking them just as badly.

And one other concern is that if the democrats can't turn that aroud, there is a real risk of the same cabal taking over the democratic party, too, just as they did the republicans, so there really is 'no choice' in effect.

 

[Jeff7]

Bush v2.0, alpha release.

Originally posted by: Craig234
But I'm hoping our democracy is strong enough to throw the right out before they get that much power. Bush's 33% approval rating and Congress' 19% approval rating are a start. The problem is that the negative propaganda on democrats has most of the public ranking them just as badly.

I don't know, given the ridiculously high incumbency rate in this country. People complain constantly about the pitiful job their legislators are doing, but when it comes time to vote, they're brainwashed by the political ads to the point that they just vote to keep the current crowd, perhaps even simply because it's names they're familiar with.

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: Caminetto
Sorry, but there are too many Kool-aid republicans in this country for history to look too unkindly on GWB.
Many, many years down the road when something good finally happens in Iraq, the Republicans will be shouting that it was all the foresight of GWB.

QFT...there's no way the right will let history look back on King Georgie other than "possibly one of the greatest men who ever lived"

 

[Craig234]

they're brainwashed by the political ads to the point that they just vote to keep the current crowd, perhaps even simply because it's names they're familiar with.

Sadly, you're right; if Californias had had to name who they thought would be a good governor, the name Arnold Schwarzeneggar would have had almost no mentions, but the money and name gave it to him. This is the problem with the power of the organization of political parties - good candidates without an R or D just can't get the votes much.

However, the democrats are not yet (as) corrupted by the powerful interests behind the republicans, and there can still be a 'throw the bums out' movement in the US. This next election will be very telling which way the nation is headed.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

200 years from now, if Americans still have any IQ points left (doubtful), Bush will be regarded as the Worst President in American History because the transformation of the United States into a third world country dramatically accelerated under his watch.

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

200 years from now, if Americans still have any IQ points left (doubtful), Bush will be regarded as the Worst President in American History because the transformation of the United States into a third world country dramatically accelerated under his watch.

Nah, the blame will still fall on Clinton for that. Even when at some point in the future, the Earth explodes into a fiery mass the words "DAMN YOU, CLINTON!!! will echo into space.

 

[senseamp]

After Bush leaves office, GOP will set up organizations to whitewash his record and blame whoever is elected to clean up his mess. Bush has no strategy for exiting Iraq aside from passing the buck and blaming his successor.

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: senseamp
After Bush leaves office, GOP will set up organizations to whitewash his record and blame whoever is elected to clean up his mess. Bush has no strategy for exiting Iraq aside from passing the buck and blaming his successor.

I'm convinced that was the exit strategy.

 

[Lemon law]

Supposed during the US Vietnamese peace talks---in an after hours shoot the bull session--the subject turned to history---and one of the North Vietnamese negotiatiors were point blank asked what they thought of the French Revolution that occured in 1789----and the answer came back---too early to tell yet.

But if this world lasts to have future historians with an objective judgement---GWB will certainly be regarded as a president who changed history.

But the other character we ignore is the bill collector---who will want to collect all those bills GWB left us for us to pay-- long before ivory tower historians get back from morning coffee break.--or even get to work for that matter.

But in terms of the Iraq war and counting intanable costs--its already got a price tag of over a trillion dollars---but on just that the one brainfart its too early to tell yet.

Not just every ordinary US president has the opportunity to have brainfarts of that historical manitude---and as for the rest of his brainfarts--we don't know yet.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: JEDI
What will history say about Bush 20yrs from now?

Some words that come to mind include TRAIOR, LIAR and CRIMINAL. I'm sure there are more I'd add after some thought.

I hope we get a Democratic majority, or at least an honest mjority, in Congress, with the balls to take them on and put them on trial for their crimes. If they're as guilty as they appear to be, I'll enjoy seeing Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove and the rest of them strung up in the public square like a cheap piñata. :| :| :|

 

[sandorski]

Bigg's History of the United States President's

1776--Founded
1780---yadda yadda yaya
....
2001 - 2008 Note: deleted due to extreme idiocy(US versions include: "the years 2000-2008 never happened! Y2k erased them, according to many experts"

 

[nageov3t]

it really all depends on how the Iraq war goes.

I mean, how would Reagan have been characterized if the cold war went differently than it did after he left office? it went well, so he got the white wash treatment.

 

[JEDIYoda]

A great statesman!!!
he will be remembered for hus integrity and honesty!!

 

[Pabster]

Maybe it depends on how many countries donate $$$ for his Presidential Library. Somehow I don't expect he will be as successful as Slick was in this regard. :laugh: