What will history say about Bush 20yrs from now?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
14,863
7,396
136
being the most secretive bunch of political crooks i've ever been exposed to, alot of how history judges this three-ring-circus of an adiminstration depends on how much of and what types of information the bushies can hide, destroy, plausibly deny and obfuscate their way out of.

when bush took office and gleefully proclaimed "let the ransacking and looting begin!", it started a chain of events in history that may someday be compared with the likes of nero and caligula.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
The historical view of Bush will be almost 100% decided on what happens with Iraq in the next 2+ years.

If we can figure out a way to "win" and set up a stable Democratic government then he will be seen as a visionary who took some very hard and unpopular positions and prevailed.

If we lose or withdraw into a "tie" then he'll fall in line with Clinton. A President with a good economic record, but who had a chance to change the world and blew it.
And I hate to burst the bubble of the hate Bush crowd, but even today with the Iraq mess the majority of people don?t see him as a traitor, liar or criminal and I don?t see that fact changing.

(Clinton was the first totally post cold war President, and yet we have nothing to show from the great opportunity he had to change world events. And this is not a Clinton attack, I am not sure if anyone could have stepped into his shoes and found a way to really change the world for the better, especially when so many people fight at every juncture.)

EDIT: I should point out that so far Iraq has cost less than 3000 lives, and Vietnam cost around 60,000 lives, and yet LBJ is not judged nearly as harsh as you think Bush will be. In otherwords, get over your Bush hating and come to grips with reality.
 

XZeroII

Lifer
Jun 30, 2001
12,572
0
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The historical view of Bush will be almost 100% decided on what happens with Iraq in the next 2+ years.

If we can figure out a way to "win" and set up a stable Democratic government then he will be seen as a visionary who took some very hard and unpopular positions and prevailed.

If we lose or withdraw into a "tie" then he'll fall in line with Clinton. A President with a good economic record, but who had a chance to change the world and blew it.
And I hate to burst the bubble of the hate Bush crowd, but even today with the Iraq mess the majority of people don?t see him as a traitor, liar or criminal and I don?t see that fact changing.

(Clinton was the first totally post cold war President, and yet we have nothing to show from the great opportunity he had to change world events. And this is not a Clinton attack, I am not sure if anyone could have stepped into his shoes and found a way to really change the world for the better, especially when so many people fight at every juncture.)

I agree.

A president typically cannot be judged by what ocurred while he is in office. Usually the effects are seen after he leaves. All in all, Bush will not be judged too harshly. There have been plenty of blunders in the past and this administration is no different. While I don't agree with all of his policies, I cannot say yet what the overall outcome will be. In 5 years, Iraq could become a model nation that spreads peace to other nations. In 5 years, it could also become a breeding ground for terrorists. We simply don't know yet, and please cut the crap where you think you know what will happen. If you know for sure how this will end up, then you are wasting your life here because I'm sure that someone would be willing to pay you millions to tell the future. We simply don't know and can't know. The effects could also be 50 years down the road. Saddam may have gained Nuclear weapons 20 years from now and we prevented that.

My point is, WE DON'T KNOW.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
66
91
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The historical view of Bush will be almost 100% decided on what happens with Iraq in the next 2+ years.

If we can figure out a way to "win" and set up a stable Democratic government then he will be seen as a visionary who took some very hard and unpopular positions and prevailed.

If we lose or withdraw into a "tie" then he'll fall in line with Clinton. A President with a good economic record, but who had a chance to change the world and blew it.
And I hate to burst the bubble of the hate Bush crowd, but even today with the Iraq mess the majority of people don?t see him as a traitor, liar or criminal and I don?t see that fact changing.

I think you're right in terms of the importance of the war, but you're delusionally optimistic about how people will feel if (or, as is probably more accurate, when) the war proves to be an abject failure. This won't be an example of a President who simply failed to implement policies, like Clinton, but rather one who spent what will ultimately be a trillion dollars, destroyed our international reputation, and killed hundreds of thousands of people in support of a corrupt and ultimately fruitless political agenda. If he isn't considered one of our worst-ever Presidents, it will be a function of spin control after the fact.
 

XZeroII

Lifer
Jun 30, 2001
12,572
0
0
Originally posted by: 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:

When you help other countries as much as willie did, of course they'll all contribute to his library. Clinton was just a great salesperson. He could sell snow to a guy in Alaska who who lives in a shack with no heat in the middle of winter. That's pretty much all he was good for. He really didn't accomplish anything. He rode the internet boom and smiled for the cameras.
 

XZeroII

Lifer
Jun 30, 2001
12,572
0
0
Originally posted by: DonVito
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The historical view of Bush will be almost 100% decided on what happens with Iraq in the next 2+ years.

If we can figure out a way to "win" and set up a stable Democratic government then he will be seen as a visionary who took some very hard and unpopular positions and prevailed.

If we lose or withdraw into a "tie" then he'll fall in line with Clinton. A President with a good economic record, but who had a chance to change the world and blew it.
And I hate to burst the bubble of the hate Bush crowd, but even today with the Iraq mess the majority of people don?t see him as a traitor, liar or criminal and I don?t see that fact changing.

I think you're right in terms of the importance of the war, but you're delusionally optimistic about how people will feel if (or, as is probably more accurate, when) the war proves to be an abject failure. This won't be an example of a President who simply failed to implement policies, like Clinton, but rather one who spent what will ultimately be a trillion dollars, destroyed our international reputation, and killed hundreds of thousands of people in support of a corrupt and ultimately fruitless political agenda. If he isn't considered one of our worst-ever Presidents, it will be a function of spin control after the fact.

Whoa! He killed hundreds of thousand of people???

If he isn't considered one of our worst-ever Presidents
What a short memory you have. You must have flunked out of US History back in grades 1-12 or something. I mean, I think Clinton was a bad president, but I don't think he was one of the worst ever. How old are you?
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
66
91
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Originally posted by: DonVito
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The historical view of Bush will be almost 100% decided on what happens with Iraq in the next 2+ years.

If we can figure out a way to "win" and set up a stable Democratic government then he will be seen as a visionary who took some very hard and unpopular positions and prevailed.

If we lose or withdraw into a "tie" then he'll fall in line with Clinton. A President with a good economic record, but who had a chance to change the world and blew it.
And I hate to burst the bubble of the hate Bush crowd, but even today with the Iraq mess the majority of people don?t see him as a traitor, liar or criminal and I don?t see that fact changing.

I think you're right in terms of the importance of the war, but you're delusionally optimistic about how people will feel if (or, as is probably more accurate, when) the war proves to be an abject failure. This won't be an example of a President who simply failed to implement policies, like Clinton, but rather one who spent what will ultimately be a trillion dollars, destroyed our international reputation, and killed hundreds of thousands of people in support of a corrupt and ultimately fruitless political agenda. If he isn't considered one of our worst-ever Presidents, it will be a function of spin control after the fact.

Whoa! He killed hundreds of thousand of people???

If he isn't considered one of our worst-ever Presidents
What a short memory you have. You must have flunked out of US History back in grades 1-12 or something. I mean, I think Clinton was a bad president, but I don't think he was one of the worst ever. How old are you?


I am 36, and hold a doctoral degree, though I don't necessarily see the relevance of my age to this discussion. I feel comfortable with what I've said regarding President Bush's historical status. I am also comfortable in saying that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died as a direct result of our undertaking offensive action against Iraq in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
 

JEDI

Lifer
Sep 25, 2001
29,391
2,736
126
Originally posted by: loki8481
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.

esplain how reagan got the whitewash treatment?
 

XZeroII

Lifer
Jun 30, 2001
12,572
0
0
Originally posted by: DonVito
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Originally posted by: DonVito
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The historical view of Bush will be almost 100% decided on what happens with Iraq in the next 2+ years.

If we can figure out a way to "win" and set up a stable Democratic government then he will be seen as a visionary who took some very hard and unpopular positions and prevailed.

If we lose or withdraw into a "tie" then he'll fall in line with Clinton. A President with a good economic record, but who had a chance to change the world and blew it.
And I hate to burst the bubble of the hate Bush crowd, but even today with the Iraq mess the majority of people don?t see him as a traitor, liar or criminal and I don?t see that fact changing.

I think you're right in terms of the importance of the war, but you're delusionally optimistic about how people will feel if (or, as is probably more accurate, when) the war proves to be an abject failure. This won't be an example of a President who simply failed to implement policies, like Clinton, but rather one who spent what will ultimately be a trillion dollars, destroyed our international reputation, and killed hundreds of thousands of people in support of a corrupt and ultimately fruitless political agenda. If he isn't considered one of our worst-ever Presidents, it will be a function of spin control after the fact.

Whoa! He killed hundreds of thousand of people???

If he isn't considered one of our worst-ever Presidents
What a short memory you have. You must have flunked out of US History back in grades 1-12 or something. I mean, I think Clinton was a bad president, but I don't think he was one of the worst ever. How old are you?


I am 36, and hold a doctoral degree, though I don't necessarily see the relevance of my age to this discussion. I feel comfortable with what I've said regarding President Bush's historical status. I am also comfortable in saying that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died as a direct result of our undertaking offensive action against Iraq in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

I respect the fact that you have a degree, but you apparently don't know much about history. You are certainly entitled to your oppinion, but I see no evidence so far that anyone has presented to make me believe that Bush is one of the worst. I'm sure many people thought the same thing about Lincoln during the civil war...
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
66
91
Originally posted by: JEDI
Originally posted by: loki8481
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.

esplain how reagan got the whitewash treatment?

He was practically canonized upon his death - we actually got the day off after he died when I was in the Air Force, so we could privately grieve him. All that in spite of the fact that, through Iran-Contra (not to mention Iraqgate), he had committed serious crimes, then lied about them to Congress.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,986
1
0
None of us here are Presidential Historians, so what is the point? Opinions are like arseholes and they matter not to what history will record.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
66
91
Originally posted by: XZeroII

I respect the fact that you have a degree, but you apparently don't know much about history. You are certainly entitled to your oppinion, but I see no evidence so far that anyone has presented to make me believe that Bush is one of the worst. I'm sure many people thought the same thing about Lincoln during the civil war...

You have real temerity attacking my knowledge of history simply because you disagree with me. I have studied American military history, both in college and as part of required officer training while I was a military officer, and as far as I can see Operation Iraqi Freedom is the dumbest, least-well-planned major military action in American history. It is transparent to me that OIF had nothing - at all - to do with the "war on terror," and everything to do with a pre-ordained agenda planned by PNAC (whose members President Bush was foolish enough to place as VP, SecDef, and Deputy SecDef, among other prominent places). Like it or not, this is President Bush's legacy, combined with his administration's unprecedented profligacy, extraordinary secrecy and willingness to compromise the rights of individuals. I feel quite comfortable in saying he is among America's worst-ever Presidents, and, as it happens, most historians say the same thing.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
66
91
Originally posted by: Pabster
None of us here are Presidential Historians, so what is the point? Opinions are like arseholes and they matter not to what history will record.

History IS opinions. It's not as though there's some empirical test for what makes a good President and what makes a bad one. If Presidential historians are the arbiter, that doesn't bode well for President Bush, since they don't approve of his performance any more than the rest of the American public.
 

ntdz

Diamond Member
Aug 5, 2004
6,989
0
0
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.

Yeah, we're well on our way to being a third world country...we're further from a third world country than we've ever been.
 

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
14,863
7,396
136
Originally posted by: ntdz
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.

Yeah, we're well on our way to being a third world country...we're further from a third world country than we've ever been.

i agree....but only with the first part of your comment.

it's just a wild ass guess of mine, but i think if you gathered up all the american citizens living in poverty in the US, and added all the illegal immigrants within our borders who share the same fate, and add those of the threatened middle class who are about to enter into a state of poverty because of the neocon war on this class, it may very well come close to the population of some small third world countries. and, if the neocons have it all their way, there will only be in the US the few who are very rich living in luxury and the millions of the very poor working for them in abject servitude.

 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: DonVito
Originally posted by: XZeroII

I respect the fact that you have a degree, but you apparently don't know much about history. You are certainly entitled to your oppinion, but I see no evidence so far that anyone has presented to make me believe that Bush is one of the worst. I'm sure many people thought the same thing about Lincoln during the civil war...

You have real temerity attacking my knowledge of history simply because you disagree with me. I have studied American military history, both in college and as part of required officer training while I was a military officer, and as far as I can see Operation Iraqi Freedom is the dumbest, least-well-planned major military action in American history. It is transparent to me that OIF had nothing - at all - to do with the "war on terror," and everything to do with a pre-ordained agenda planned by PNAC (whose members President Bush was foolish enough to place as VP, SecDef, and Deputy SecDef, among other prominent places). Like it or not, this is President Bush's legacy, combined with his administration's unprecedented profligacy, extraordinary secrecy and willingness to compromise the rights of individuals. I feel quite comfortable in saying he is among America's worst-ever Presidents, and, as it happens, most historians say the same thing.
Can you back that up with proof? The only study I have seen ranking Bush so far puts him right in the middle, one or two spots above Clinton (who suffers due to Monica etc)
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,302
144
106
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: DonVito
Originally posted by: XZeroII

I respect the fact that you have a degree, but you apparently don't know much about history. You are certainly entitled to your oppinion, but I see no evidence so far that anyone has presented to make me believe that Bush is one of the worst. I'm sure many people thought the same thing about Lincoln during the civil war...

You have real temerity attacking my knowledge of history simply because you disagree with me. I have studied American military history, both in college and as part of required officer training while I was a military officer, and as far as I can see Operation Iraqi Freedom is the dumbest, least-well-planned major military action in American history. It is transparent to me that OIF had nothing - at all - to do with the "war on terror," and everything to do with a pre-ordained agenda planned by PNAC (whose members President Bush was foolish enough to place as VP, SecDef, and Deputy SecDef, among other prominent places). Like it or not, this is President Bush's legacy, combined with his administration's unprecedented profligacy, extraordinary secrecy and willingness to compromise the rights of individuals. I feel quite comfortable in saying he is among America's worst-ever Presidents, and, as it happens, most historians say the same thing.
Can you back that up with proof? The only study I have seen ranking Bush so far puts him right in the middle, one or two spots above Clinton (who suffers due to Monica etc)

wow there are studies out already?

link?
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
66
91
Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Can you back that up with proof? The only study I have seen ranking Bush so far puts him right in the middle, one or two spots above Clinton (who suffers due to Monica etc)

Here you go - keep in mind this survey was taken in early 2004, and if anything I have to believe their views would be even harsher:

A recent informal, unscientific survey of historians conducted at my suggestion by George Mason University?s History News Network found that eight in ten historians responding rate the current presidency an overall failure.

Of 415 historians who expressed a view of President Bush?s administration to this point as a success or failure, 338 classified it as a failure and 77 as a success. (Moreover, it seems likely that at least eight of those who said it is a success were being sarcastic, since seven said Bush?s presidency is only the best since Clinton?s and one named Millard Fillmore.) Twelve percent of all the historians who responded rate the current presidency the worst in all of American history, not too far behind the 19 percent who see it at this point as an overall success.

* * *

Yet today 57 percent of all the historians who participated in the survey (and 70 percent of those who see the Bush presidency as a failure) either name someone prior to Nixon or say that Bush?s presidency is the worst ever, meaning that they rate it as worse than the two presidencies in the past half century that liberals have most loved to hate, those of Nixon and Reagan. One who made the comparison with Nixon explicit wrote, ?Indeed, Bush puts Nixon into a more favorable light. He has trashed the image and reputation of the United States throughout the world; he has offended many of our previously close allies; he has burdened future generations with incredible debt; he has created an unnecessary war to further his domestic political objectives; he has suborned the civil rights of our citizens; he has destroyed previous environmental efforts by government in favor of his coterie of exploiters; he has surrounded himself with a cabal of ideological adventurers . . . .?

* * *

The second most common response from historians, trailing only Nixon, was that the current presidency is the worst in American history. A few examples will serve to provide the flavor of such condemnations. ?Although previous presidents have led the nation into ill-advised wars, no predecessor managed to turn America into an unprovoked aggressor. No predecessor so thoroughly managed to confirm the impressions of those who already hated America. No predecessor so effectively convinced such a wide range of world opinion that America is an imperialist threat to world peace. I don 't think that you can do much worse than that.?

?Bush is horrendous; there is no comparison with previous presidents, most of whom have been bad.?

?He is blatantly a puppet for corporate interests, who care only about their own greed and have no sense of civic responsibility or community service. He lies, constantly and often, seemingly without control, and he lied about his invasion into a sovereign country, again for corporate interests; many people have died and been maimed, and that has been lied about too. He grandstands and mugs in a shameful manner, befitting a snake oil salesman, not a statesman. He does not think, process, or speak well, and is emotionally immature due to, among other things, his lack of recovery from substance abuse. The term is "dry drunk". He is an abject embarrassment/pariah overseas; the rest of the world hates him . . . . . He is, by far, the most irresponsible, unethical, inexcusable occupant of our formerly highest office in the land that there has ever been.?

?George W. Bush's presidency is the pernicious enemy of American freedom, compassion, and community; of world peace; and of life itself as it has evolved for millennia on large sections of the planet. The worst president ever? Let history judge him.?

?This president is unique in his failures.?

* * *

My assessment is that George W. Bush?s record on running up debt to burden our children is the worst since Ronald Reagan; his record on government surveillance of citizens is the worst since Richard Nixon; his record on foreign-military policy has gotten us into the worst foreign mess we?ve been in since Lyndon Johnson sank us into Vietnam; his economic record is the worst since Herbert Hoover; his record of tax favoritism for the rich is the worst since Calvin Coolidge; his record of trampling on civil liberties is the worst since Woodrow Wilson. How far back in our history would we need to go to find a presidency as disastrous for this country as that of George W. Bush has been thus far? My own vote went to the administration of James Buchanan, who warmed the president?s chair while the union disintegrated in 1860-61.


 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Nice survey, but at the survey points out "And such an informal survey is plainly not scientifically reliable.
Let me do a survey of talk radio show hosts and see where they rank him.

Based on reading the survey it looks like a bunch of unhappy left leaning people complaining about Bush, some of the comments read like those on this thread.

Check out this line and see if you notice any bias
"I do not share the view of another respondent that ?until we have gained access to the archival record of this president, we [historians] are no better at evaluating it than any other voter.? In other words, someone said something I don't agree with so I will just ignore their point.

If this is your proof that "most historians say the same thing" in regards to Bush being the worst President ever I think you have failed miserably. Try a little less biased group next time.

BTW: the two surveys listed in the link I posted are far more even handed and less biased. I.E. they are based on reality, and not the liberal version of reality.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
66
91
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Nice survey, but at the survey points out "And such an informal survey is plainly not scientifically reliable.
Let me do a survey of talk radio show hosts and see where they rank him.

Based on reading the survey it looks like a bunch of unhappy left leaning people complaining about Bush, some of the comments read like those on this thread.

Check out this line and see if you notice any bias
"I do not share the view of another respondent that ?until we have gained access to the archival record of this president, we [historians] are no better at evaluating it than any other voter.? In other words, someone said something I don't agree with so I will just ignore their point.

If this is your proof that "most historians say the same thing" in regards to Bush being the worst President ever I think you have failed miserably. Try a little less biased group next time.

BTW: the two surveys listed in the link I posted are far more even handed and less biased. I.E. they are based on reality, and not the liberal version of reality.

It was a poll of historians - you asked and you received. Obviously we don't know, at this point, how history will view a sitting President, but it is readily apparent Bush has made a ton of catastrophically bad decisions, and as far as I can see the only thing that could potentially salvage his legacy would be a win not only in Iraq but in the war on terror generally. I think that's impossible, largely because Bush himself lacks the commitment to make that happen.

 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: OrByte
wow there are studies out already?

link?
Ask and you shall receive
Wiki compendium of ratings lists
Notice, Bush 43 average rating 21, Clinton 20.67 nearly a tie
One rates Bush higher than Clinton, one rates him lower, both are right in the middle.

According to your link, Clinton has been rated 7 times for his average and GWB has only been rated twice.

Time will tell, but I think it's probably all downhill from here for Bush's legacy.
 

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,596
19
81
What will history say about Bush 20yrs from now?
To quote the man himself (out of context) :) :




,




 

OneOfTheseDays

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2000
7,052
0
0
I think people will remember the Bush administration as a time of great political divisiveness. Never has this country been more divided. As Clinton recently said, we need to be having philisophical debates with each other that can lead to progress and compromise. Instead we are turning into idealogues, unwilling to listen or give credibility to the other side. Bush has done nothing but exacerbate this horrid political climate of personal attack and vitriol. I blame him for the atmosphere in Washington and around the country as much as I do the politicians.

I can't see any historian giving him marks any higher than average. You simply cannot, his presidency has been filled with failures and incompetency. He has yet to push through any of the significant legislature and reform he promised, even with control of both the House and Senate. There is simply nothing in his record to remember him as a successful president.

Anyone who says otherwise is simply blind to what is obvious to most of us in this country. And can we please stop comparing Bush to Clinton, this thread is supposed to be about Bush only.