NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you think George W Bush will be one of the most famous/infamous presidents of all time, amongst those such as Abraham Lincoln, JFK and George Washington? Or will he be forgotten in the grand scheme of things?

Do you think George W Bush will be one of the most famous/infamous presidents of all time, amongst those such as Abraham Lincoln, JFK and George Washington? Or will he be forgotten in the grand scheme of things?

I'm sure he'll be remembered as being the President during one of the most divisive times in US History (until the next big divisive time comes along).

He'll be remembered, yes. As for how History (capital H on purpose) treats him is up to who writes the history books.

Do you think George W Bush will be one of the most famous/infamous presidents of all time, amongst those such as Abraham Lincoln, JFK and George Washington? Or will he be forgotten in the grand scheme of things?


He will be remembered as the first president that was hated by every person in the world with at least half a brain.

What with that big ass library he plans on building, I'd say yes.

I say yes, but what he'll be remembered for, well who knows.

I hope he's remembered for being fiscally irresponsible and expanding the government powers beyond what the country actually needed.

He will be remembered as the man who professed to be a "uniter", then proceeded to plunge the most powerful country of his time into the most divided state it had ever been since its own civil war. He will also be remembered as the "leader" who chose politics over wisdom. A total failure, and a blight on the world that will take more than a generation to repair the damage he has wrought.

I just had to lol at this. :D

Can I ask why?

He will be remembered as the man who professed to be a "uniter", then proceeded to plunge the most powerful country of his time into the most divided state it had ever been since its own civil war. He will also be remembered as the "leader" who chose politics over wisdom. A total failure, and a blight on the world that will take more than a generation to repair the damage he has wrought.


well, he did unite the nation and the world against him :D

I hope he's remembered for being fiscally irresponsible and expanding the government powers beyond what the country actually needed.

I just had to lol at this. :D

Of course he will be remembered. But I don't expect him to be remembered in a flattering light.

The tales of his presidency may someday be used to scare little children... ;)

First time poster, here. Hello!

At this point, I think Bush is waiting out his term, and hoping that no disasters or terrorist attacks happen on his watch. If another attack happens on American soil during his presidency, he has lost the only trump card he's ever had, Homeland Security.

At best, he will be perceived as a mediocre Prez, who "kept the terrorists at bay" during his terms as leader.

For me, Bush stands as the worst President in my lifetime, who seems more than willing to use fear as a tool, and sacrifice the precepts of democracy for a false-sense of security and the benefit of his corporate connections.

Just my two cents.

Yes, probably as a complete tool. See also John Howard, who keeps getting voted in for some reason I just can't fathom.

Yes, probably as a complete tool. See also John Howard, who keeps getting voted in for some reason I just can't fathom.

And Blair. I cannot see any good reason to vote for the Vicar, ever.

That said, is there any possibility of his being charged with war crimes over Iraq? There was a documentary with Robert Lindsey playing Blai a while back in which this situation was explored, and I must confess I do hope it does come to reality.

And Blair. I cannot see any good reason to vote for the Vicar, ever.
To be fair, Blair 1997-2003 was actually quite good, and even with Iraq, which is a huge dent in the armour of Labour, economic growth has been steady and crime has been kept fairly low.
That said, is there any possibility of his being charged with war crimes over Iraq? There was a documentary with Robert Lindsey playing Blai a while back in which this situation was explored, and I must confess I do hope it does come to reality.
Absolutely not. See also Bush and Howard.

To be fair, Blair 1997-2003 was actually quite good, and even with Iraq, which is a huge dent in the armour of Labour, economic growth has been steady and crime has been kept fairly low.

Absolutely not. See also Bush and Howard.

Shame. The look on his face would be priceless.

Strangely, I disagree about Blair.:D

The man betrayed nothing short of contempt to UK, and the British body politic, in his decade in power; he relied simply on statistical evidence to substantiate his claims to have improved Britain, disregarding that which cannot be financially or statistically quantified. Moreover, his demagoguery has all but killed British politics.

Shame. The look on his face would be priceless.
True, and it would be deserved indeed.
Strangely, I disagree about Blair.:D
Yeah, I thought you might.
The man betrayed nothing short of contempt to UK, and the British body politic, in his decade in power; he relied simply on statistical evidence to substantiate his claims to have improved Britain, disregarding that which cannot be financially or statistically quantified.
*shrugs*

It's been a conservative regime in all but name.
Moreover, his demagoguery has all but killed British politics.
Judging by the utter crapulence of the Conservative party and the irrelevance of the Lib Dems, I think it'd be that way even were Brown in power for the last 10 years.

Do you think George W Bush will be one of the most famous/infamous presidents of all time, amongst those such as Abraham Lincoln, JFK and George Washington? Or will he be forgotten in the grand scheme of things?

certainly he will be remembered. like all tyrannts, by peasants who point in the direction of his grave when making water in the field.

=^^=
.../\...

First time poster, here. Hello!

At this point, I think Bush is waiting out his term, and hoping that no disasters or terrorist attacks happen on his watch. If another attack happens on American soil during his presidency, he has lost the only trump card he's ever had, Homeland Security.

At best, he will be perceived as a mediocre Prez, who "kept the terrorists at bay" during his terms as leader.

For me, Bush stands as the worst President in my lifetime, who seems more than willing to use fear as a tool, and sacrifice the precepts of democracy for a false-sense of security and the benefit of his corporate connections.

Just my two cents.What about Afghanistan and Iraq?? Aren't you forgetting something? He is exactly not the one who will have "kept the terrorists at bay" in his term.
It's a shame he won't be remembered as the president who dangled next to Saddam for the crimes and atrocities he is responsible for.

He will be remembered as the man who professed to be a "uniter", then proceeded to plunge the most powerful country of his time into the most divided state it had ever been since its own civil war.

What? Tilden-Hayes? The Civil Rights Era?

Unless he is impeached in time, GWB will be remembered as the president who plunged the US into wars in Iraq and Iran.
History will forget that under his rule the economy has dramatically deteriorated, and that under his rule 3.7 trillion dollars mysteriously went missing.

I think )hope) he'll be remembered with a sigh and a shake-of-the-head, as in, "What the fuck were we thinking of to elect that?"

Honestly, he'll be forgot within three decades. I held this belief at the beginning of his term, and I still hold it. I felt that after the September 11th attacks he had a rare opportunity to do several key things that would get him remembered as an all right President, but he ruined that shit. As such, he's old news, as far as history is concerned.

I think he'll be remembered for the next few decades like a hook-up at a bar that you want to forget the next day: "Yeah, so I was a little wasted and it seemed like a good idea at the time, but I just don't want to talk about it now, alright?"

In historical terms, I imagine a lot of shit will pile up on his legacy as more of the administration's dealings get exposed in the years after, until the Bush Jr. administration has become a massive historical turd.

Honestly, he'll be forgot within three decades. I held this belief at the beginning of his term, and I still hold it. I felt that after the September 11th attacks he had a rare opportunity to do several key things that would get him remembered as an all right President, but he ruined that shit. As such, he's old news, as far as history is concerned.
After September 11th, he held the world in the palm of his hands and then he proceeded to slowly crush it.

i dont know about history but *I* would certainly like to be able to forget him and what he has done to this country.

Future generatuons will rememebr him for the same reason we remember Nixon, Harding, and Nero.

I think he'll sometimes be compared with Churchill - a visionary who recognized a mortal danger to world civilization and did something about it, although was far from perfect and not particularly popular. Although a much more apt comparison will actually be with Truman - a leader who recognized a mortal danger to world civilization, realized that there was no quick fix and that a long struggle was the only alternative to the end of civilization, set long-term policies to deal with the new realities, had to go into a shooting war, mishandled it by refusing to use nuclear weapons when they were really called for and as a result was quite unpopular at the end of his term, but was treated by history much kinder than by his contemporaries.

Do you think George W Bush will be one of the most famous/infamous presidents of all time, amongst those such as Abraham Lincoln, JFK and George Washington? Or will he be forgotten in the grand scheme of things?

I'd say he'd be remembered as the Nixon of the 2000s. [/cynical]

I think he'll sometimes be compared with Churchill - a visionary who recognized a mortal danger to world civilization and did something about it, although was far from perfect and not particularly popular. Although a much more apt comparison will actually be with Truman - a leader who recognized a mortal danger to world civilization, realized that there was no quick fix and that a long struggle was the only alternative to the end of civilization, set long-term policies to deal with the new realities, had to go into a shooting war, mishandled it by refusing to use nuclear weapons when they were really called for and as a result was quite unpopular at the end of his term, but was treated by history much kinder than by his contemporaries.
or he'll be thought of as a dipshit who fucked the US with an expensive pointless war.

mmm...wonder which is more likely?

After September 11th, he held the world in the palm of his hands and then he proceeded to slowly crush it.

Which really goes to show just how incompetent he himself is, and how clueless his chosen advisers were.

What with that big ass library he plans on building, I'd say yes.

Someone should bomb it...;)

Do you think George W Bush will be one of the most famous/infamous presidents of all time, amongst those such as Abraham Lincoln, JFK and George Washington? Or will he be forgotten in the grand scheme of things?

No, he'll be remembered alongside Nixon. No serious scholar is comparing Bush favorably with FDR, JFK, or Lincoln. Only a few political hacks.

Frankly, the best the Bush legacy can hope for is oblivion. But that's probably too much to ask.

I don't think it's peticularly fair to judge a President's legacy when he's still in office. Harry Truman had some of the lowest job approval ratings in history, yet he's remembered now as one of the better presidents the US has had.

Wait for a good 10-20 years, then we can pass judgment.

Do you think George W Bush will be one of the most famous/infamous presidents of all time, amongst those such as Abraham Lincoln, JFK and George Washington? Or will he be forgotten in the grand scheme of things?

He'll be remembered for "Fool me once, shame on—shame on you. Fool me—you can't get fooled again." And for espousing "nukular" weapons.

First time poster, here. Hello!

At this point, I think Bush is waiting out his term, and hoping that no disasters or terrorist attacks happen on his watch. If another attack happens on American soil during his presidency, he has lost the only trump card he's ever had, Homeland Security.

At best, he will be perceived as a mediocre Prez, who "kept the terrorists at bay" during his terms as leader.

For me, Bush stands as the worst President in my lifetime, who seems more than willing to use fear as a tool, and sacrifice the precepts of democracy for a false-sense of security and the benefit of his corporate connections.

Just my two cents.
You so totally are not a first time poster...where are the gun smilies? The exaggerations? The punctuation abuse? Bah! You call this a first post? Why, it's down right reasonable. What are you trying to pull?

I'm on to you, pal, I got my eye on you...

He'll go into the books as a second Lincoln. He presided over some important stuff.

Remember the reason he got elected was education and it was only his education position that got him in the White House. The democrats were claiming that education was not important. GWB said it was so the electorate put him in the White House.

He was also an isolationist. He wanted to pull troops out of Korea, Germany, Saudi, etc.

He got his education reforms passed, which recent studies show have been moderately successful at raising the academic performance of minority students. Though some states are illegally taking the NCLB money from poor communities and giving it to rich communities. Unfortunately no one has challenged them.

He was prepping to pull the last American troops out of Korea and Europe when 911 struck and Al Qaeda said it wanted to shoot his plane down or crash one into the White House to kill him.

Ever since, he's been sending troops to Afghanistan and Iraq and getting more involved in supporting Israel which he hadn't been as ardent a supporter of previously.

Before 9/11 his attitude was that other countries should be allowed to do whatever they wanted in their own borders. But after someone tried to kill him and other Americans on 9/11 he has been more interested in world affairs and more "proactive".

I think if someone tried to kill you and your family and you saw Palestinians and Latin Americans celebrating in the streets you would be more assertive too.

He'll go into the books as a second Lincoln.

Ahhh, ok, I get ya now.

Welcome back MTAE.

He presided over some important stuff the way Neville Chamberlain presided over some important stuff. History won't be as nice to him as they were to Mr. Appeasement, though.

If any great American comedian is remembered, George W. Bush will be remembered. His legacy will live on.

He'll go into the books as a second Lincoln. He presided over some important stuff.

He presided over some important stuff the way Neville Chamberlain presided over some important stuff. History won't be as nice to him as they were to Mr. Appeasement, though.

Win.

Which really goes to show just how incompetent he himself is, and how clueless his chosen advisers were.
Truer words were never spoken!!

George Dubya Bush will go down in history as the greatest president in the history of the United States of America. You know what, he's actually probably the greatest man to ever walk the face of the earth.

And of course, I must list my reasons for my acclaim for this demi-god.

He's the most selfless person ever. He has spread freedom all over the globe, especially to the people that needed it most. You know, them Iraqis? Those 600,000 deaths? Terrorists. All of them terrorists. Even the babies and small children. They were going to grow up to be terrorists like freedom hating mommy and daddy.

He is in real good shape. Mostly because the rest of the other presidents wasted their time reading.

He had the best cabinet giving the greatest man the greatest advice. Rumsfeld, Rove, Wolfawitz - they all deserve medals of honor. Honor. Not Honour. Honest to God honor.

He's shown everyone across the globe that you can vacation to your heart's content and still be a wonderful leader.

So. GWB will be remembered as Jesus v. 2.0.

George Dubya Bush will go down in history as the greatest president in the history of the United States of America. You know what, he's actually probably the greatest man to ever walk the face of the earth.

And of course, I must list my reasons for my acclaim for this demi-god.

He's the most selfless person ever. He has spread freedom all over the globe, especially to the people that needed it most. You know, them Iraqis? Those 600,000 deaths? Terrorists. All of them terrorists. Even the babies and small children. They were going to grow up to be terrorists like freedom hating mommy and daddy.

He is in real good shape. Mostly because the rest of the other presidents wasted their time reading.

He had the best cabinet giving the greatest man the greatest advice. Rumsfeld, Rove, Wolfawitz - they all deserve medals of honor. Honor. Not Honour. Honest to God honor.

He's shown everyone across the globe that you can vacation to your heart's content and still be a wonderful leader.

So. GWB will be remembered as Jesus v. 2.0.The perspective in a little box in Siberia must be somewhat narrowed, huh? :)

oh yeah good or bad he'll be rembered.

The perspective in a little box in Siberia must be somewhat narrowed, huh? :)

*whoosh*

I think so. Not so much him as his time period. I think he'll be remembered in the same sense as LBJ, a president who led one of the worst wars in our countries history.

I hope history reflects 9/11 as blood on the state's hands and Iraq as one of the worst mistakes of all time.

Homeland Security.



Just my two cents.



That depends what you believe about 9/11 though.

The perspective in a little box in Siberia must be somewhat narrowed, huh? :)

No, but it is full of sarcasm. :p

I think he'll sometimes be compared with Churchill - a visionary who recognized a mortal danger to world civilization and did something about it, although was far from perfect and not particularly popular. Although a much more apt comparison will actually be with Truman - a leader who recognized a mortal danger to world civilization, realized that there was no quick fix and that a long struggle was the only alternative to the end of civilization, set long-term policies to deal with the new realities, had to go into a shooting war, mishandled it by refusing to use nuclear weapons when they were really called for and as a result was quite unpopular at the end of his term, but was treated by history much kinder than by his contemporaries.

Of course he'll be remembered. 27 posts in before anyone actually goes out on a limb and talks about the challenges this president faced. Heaven forbid anyone think for themselves, just keep believing everything the media says. What should he have done? Watched? Maybe he went too far, but maybe the general public doesn't have as much information as the president of the most powerful nation on earth. Maybe, just maybe he did what was needed to mantain the status quo, and keep western civilization comfortable while we sit on our big fat asses and judge everything and everybody for not doing the right thing, because we could have done so much better. Well run for public office! Show the world what you got! Or just keep posting comments in a forum where no one knows who you are! (I know I'm guilty of that too.) But please people, READ BETWEEN THE LINES SOMETIMES, DON"T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU READ / HERE!!!

As to the question "how will history remember george w. bush", the best answer the man can possibly hope for is "it won't." With the legacy he leaves us, obscurity is the most favorable possible result.

He will be remember for being an epic failure in the same line as Nixon, Grant and others.

like said before......It's not a matter of him being remember it's how he will be remembered...which we shall see

He will be remember for being an epic failure in the same line as Nixon, Grant and others.

the funny part is, despite their obviously bad reputation for various things (watergate and corruption) both Nixon and Grant did great things for this country. Grant effectively declawed the KKK following the civil war and Nixon made huge advancements in our foreign policy.

In fact, were it not for watergate, nixon would probably be regarded as a fairly sucessful president. It's not fair to even the legacy of Nixon to have him bunched with Bush, because Nixon, while he was horribly immoral and did terrible things, also accomplised a few very good things.

Bush's presidency on the other hand has been an abject failure, accomplishing no real benefits to the nation to offset the serious blunders he caused. Bush should not even be considered like Nixon, because Nixon at least had benefits to this country.

Bush instead should be linked with those presidents who were so ineffectual, so incompetant, so utterly worthless in their job that their administration gave no tangible benefit to the nation. As such he should be pared with the likes of Harding, Pierce, Buchanan and Hoover.

I think if someone tried to kill you and your family and you saw Palestinians and Latin Americans celebrating in the streets you would be more assertive too.
Yeah, well if someone tried to kill you and you saw Yanks and Israelis celebrating in the streets, you'd be equally as assertive ;)

Yeah, well if someone tried to kill you and you saw Yanks and Israelis celebrating in the streets, you'd be equally as assertive ;)

And damn it all if we don't go and have a big assertive party with big assertive ordinance everywhere we meet up.

I doubt he will be remembered anymore than someone like McKinley, who Karl Rove keeps comparing him to. He was a pretty big failure, but I can' think of anything he did with any lasting impact. The War in Iraq would probably be the biggest, but there are plenty of wars. At best, I think it will get Spanish-American status.

Of course the George Washington Bridge will be remembered -- it's one of the main arteries from Manhattan to New Jersey.... oh wait...

I think this era will be like 1870-1900 one that is largely forgotten in history and one of little known presidents.

I doubt he will be remembered anymore than someone like McKinley, who Karl Rove keeps comparing him to. He was a pretty big failure, but I can' think of anything he did with any lasting impact. The War in Iraq would probably be the biggest, but there are plenty of wars. At best, I think it will get Spanish-American status.

Except people actually remember McKinley for being assassinated.

Except people actually remember McKinley for being assassinated.

Please don't get my hopes up...

I think if someone tried to kill you and your family and you saw Palestinians and Latin Americans celebrating in the streets you would be more assertive too.

My daughter was in Israel on 9/11. There were no Palestinians celebrating. The Palestinian businessmen constantly expressed their disdain for the 9/11 actions. They put signs in their windows in support of the US and offered 50% discounts to Americans. She never felt any fear in dealing with the Palestinians.

Bush will be remembered in the same breath and with the same fondness that we all reserve for Warren G Harding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_G._Harding). The primary difference being, Harding himself is quoted as saying "I am not fit for this office and never should have been here." Bush has yet to achieve that level of awareness.

Bush will be remembered by the world, though. He will be noted as the trigger man who ended the reign of "the world's only superpower" by pissing away any credibility the USA had on the world stage by a misguided strategy called the Project for the New American Century (http://www.newamericancentury.org/). This strategy, authored heavily by Paul Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby, and Dick Cheney, took the position that an Imperial America could dictate terms to the rest of the world for at least the next 100 years. This same assurance can be seen by the way the Iraqis saw the US as "liberators" (despite Wolfowitz's expectations). Apparently none of the Bush troika were aware of China, India, or the possibilities of a growing European Union.

Yeah, he'll leave a legacy. It'll be the legacy of the other leaders who saw their nations' enduring empires (Remember Spain? Portugal? The Netherlands? Britian?) bite the dust as newer, more agile nations supplanted them.

Thanks, George. Well done.

He'll be remembered, the same way Nixon was remembered.

The only thing Bush has in common with George Washington is his first name.

Oh, he'll be remembered. The Bush Administration has effectively shaped American foreign policy for a significant amount of time in to the future. The ramifications of Iraq and the war against terrorism will be felt for a long time after 2008, for better or for worse.

Mind you, I believe his final legacy will not be seen for some time.

Do you think George W Bush will be one of the most famous/infamous presidents of all time
Fuck yes.

Bush will be remembered in the same breath and with the same fondness that we all reserve for Warren G Harding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_G._Harding). The primary difference being, Harding himself is quoted as saying "I am not fit for this office and never should have been here." Bush has yet to achieve that level of awareness.

Bush will be remembered by the world, though. He will be noted as the trigger man who ended the reign of "the world's only superpower" by pissing away any credibility the USA had on the world stage by a misguided strategy called the Project for the New American Century (http://www.newamericancentury.org/). This strategy, authored heavily by Paul Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby, and Dick Cheney, took the position that an Imperial America could dictate terms to the rest of the world for at least the next 100 years. This same assurance can be seen by the way the Iraqis saw the US as "liberators" (despite Wolfowitz's expectations). Apparently none of the Bush troika were aware of China, India, or the possibilities of a growing European Union.

Yeah, he'll leave a legacy. It'll be the legacy of the other leaders who saw their nations' enduring empires (Remember Spain? Portugal? The Netherlands? Britian?) bite the dust as newer, more agile nations supplanted them.

Thanks, George. Well done.Great, great post.
*bows*

Of course he will be remembered. But I don't expect him to be remembered in a flattering light.

The tales of his presidency may someday be used to scare little children... ;)

Halloween has a new purpose, the witch from Texas in her oily pumpkin patch, WHOOOOOOHH

I think he'll sometimes be compared with Churchill - a visionary who recognized a mortal danger to world civilization and did something about it, although was far from perfect and not particularly popular. Although a much more apt comparison will actually be with Truman - a leader who recognized a mortal danger to world civilization, realized that there was no quick fix and that a long struggle was the only alternative to the end of civilization, set long-term policies to deal with the new realities, had to go into a shooting war, mishandled it by refusing to use nuclear weapons when they were really called for and as a result was quite unpopular at the end of his term, but was treated by history much kinder than by his contemporaries.


I think that is a very astute analysis. Churchill is now revered as one of England's greatest Prime Ministers, but the Brits kicked him out of office after WWII. Lincoln is considered one of the greatest American presidents, but during his terms in office, a sizeable percentage of his countrymen would have happily shot him (and one did, in fact).

GWB is the first American President dealing with the war on terror. There really is no template on how to fight this war, so it's not surprising that he made mistakes.

If we compare the WOT to WWII, we are at the Spanish Civil War phase of the conflict. The various parties are still trying to figure out their strategies for this conflict.

Snip.

If we are to compare the War on Terror to WWII, what Bush did was attacking Switzerland because Germany attacked the US.

Now stop assuming us to be fools.

I think that is a very astute analysis. Churchill is now revered as one of England's greatest Prime Ministers, but the Brits kicked him out of office after WWII.
I'll be honest, I wish he wasn't, seeing as he was one of the crappiest commanders ever (Gallipoli for starters), brought Britain back onto the Gold Standard which ruined economic growth from the mid twenties into the early thirties and said that gassing people was OK if they were Africans.

I think that is a very astute analysis. Churchill is now revered as one of England's greatest Prime Ministers, but the Brits kicked him out of office after WWII. Lincoln is considered one of the greatest American presidents, but during his terms in office, a sizeable percentage of his countrymen would have happily shot him (and one did, in fact).

GWB is the first American President dealing with the war on terror. There really is no template on how to fight this war, so it's not surprising that he made mistakes.

If we compare the WOT to WWII, we are at the Spanish Civil War phase of the conflict. The various parties are still trying to figure out their strategies for this conflict.

But you see, after Lincoln waged the Civil war, he won. America was one country. After Churchill waged WWII the Allies won. The world was not conquered by Nazis and (west) Germany became a stable democracy.

If after the Iraq war Iraq had become a stable democracy then sure, George would have been seen as a hero. But that shows now signs of ever happening.

Also, Hitler attacked Britain. The Confederacy attacked Fort Sumter. Hussein didn't do a damned thing to start this war. He had already agreed to all our demands before we invaded. The more people look into this war the more they see how misguided and utterly wrong it was. Morally, strategically, conceptually, just completely wrong.

And on top of that, George Dubya was a failure at everything before he became president. The story that shapes when one looks at the biography of George W. Bush is tragic in that Arthur Miller is no longer around to write it, because no one else could do justice to a figure as truly pathetic as Bush Junior.

And on top of that, George Dubya was a failure at everything before he became president.

Like, literally, getting fired from every job he held since college. And, when his daddy finally gave him an oil company to run, it went bankrupt when it couldn't find oil in Bahrain!!

If American history is any indicator, yes he'll go down as one of the best Presidents we ever had, right alongside Franklin D.Roosevelt and Abe Lincoln ... two of the most fascist and dictatoral presidents this great nation has ever had to endure.

It's a shame that kids 50 years from now will be learning of the "great deeds" Bush did to save us from terrorist, just like we (Americans) learned what "great deeds" FDR did to "save" us from the great depression and the "great deeds" Lincoln did to save the Union. Propaganda at it's finest if you ask me. History really is written by the winners.

Like, literally, getting fired from every job he held since college. And, when his daddy finally gave him an oil company to run, it went bankrupt when it couldn't find oil in Bahrain!!

Well, to be fair, the oil industry is pretty tough. Especially in the 80's when prices collapse and a lot of firms went under...if you don't have a lot of experience in the industry on the production level (i.e. a degree in petroleum engineering), you're going to be in a tough position to start any kind of oil business successfully.

If we are to compare the War on Terror to WWII, what Bush did was attacking Switzerland because Germany attacked the US.

Now stop assuming us to be fools.

The comparison doesn't work, because the two wars are so completely different. Comparing Iraq to Switzerland in WWII doesn't make sense- Switzerland wasn't supporting the nazis, while Saddam's Iraq was funding and aiding terrorist groups.

There really is no past war that compares to the WOT. We are fighting a bunch of non-state actors whose goals are very difficult for us to comprehend. This is a really a new paradigm in warfare. So, it's not surprising that there will be some errors along the way.

But you see, after Lincoln waged the Civil war, he won. America was one country. After Churchill waged WWII the Allies won. The world was not conquered by Nazis and (west) Germany became a stable democracy.

Lincoln won the Civil War, but it wasn't until the 1960's that the last vestiges of Confederate culture and society were defeated in the South. For decades after the Civil War, Federal troops basically engagd in a military occupation of the South. The Allies won WWII, but England entered a long period of decline after the war.

Similarly, Iraq is chaotic now, but we are only 4 years into that situation. Germany was in really poor shape in 1949, too.

My point is that it's really too early to judge the success of GWB's policies and tactics in the WOT. We won't be able to make an objective determination for decades.


And on top of that, George Dubya was a failure at everything before he became president. The story that shapes when one looks at the biography of George W. Bush is tragic in that Arthur Miller is no longer around to write it, because no one else could do justice to a figure as truly pathetic as Bush Junior.

Grant was basically broke before the Civil War. FDR was a rich layabout who got law firm job as a sinecure. Bill Clinton has never actually held a real job. And on and on.

Lincoln won the Civil War, but it wasn't until the 1960's that the last vestiges of Confederate culture and society were defeated in the South. For decades after the Civil War, Federal troops basically engagd in a military occupation of the South. The Allies won WWII, but England entered a long period of decline after the war.

Similarly, Iraq is chaotic now, but we are only 4 years into that situation. Germany was in really poor shape in 1949, too.

My point is that it's really too early to judge the success of GWB's policies and tactics in the WOT. We won't be able to make an objective determination for decades.

I am glad to finally hear someone else say this. As I was reading some of the scathing comments by some people, I was inclined to wonder what people were saying about FDR as he created the deficit as he created countless government projects. What did people actually think of Lincoln during his term?

I don't think that even Bill Clinton's impact on our society has really been determined. While I may have my own opinions, that probably differ from those of others, I still think we should withhold judgement until we actually see how everything will turn out.

The comparison doesn't work, because the two wars are so completely different. Comparing Iraq to Switzerland in WWII doesn't make sense- Switzerland wasn't supporting the nazis, while Saddam's Iraq was funding and aiding terrorist groups.

Again there has been no substantial proof that Sadam's regime supported Al Qaida in any way. In fact, Sadam's regime held vastly different values than Al Qaida so it is very unlikely that he did.

I believe that most Americans have come to believe that we were lied to in order convince us to attack Iraq. Whether we should have attacked Iraq is a debate that will be held for many years to come. There just isn't enough evidence to support the position that President Bush took at the start of the war.

There really is no past war that compares to the WOT. We are fighting a bunch of non-state actors whose goals are very difficult for us to comprehend. This is a really a new paradigm in warfare. So, it's not surprising that there will be some errors along the way.

With this I can agree. Terrorists do not look like anyone specific. They are "masters" of blending into their surroundings and can be anyone or anywhere. There are going to be mistakes. What becomes critical when those mistakes are made is admitting those mistakes and dealing with the consequences.

Unfortunatly, President Bush is not willing to admit he made a mistake. Therefore he, and the American people, cannot accept responsiblity for the actions he led us to take. This is what has created the division within the American people. Until one of our leaders steps up to the plate to admit our mistake and take responsiblity, the division will remain.

Similarly, Iraq is chaotic now, but we are only 4 years into that situation. Germany was in really poor shape in 1949, too.

Big difference though. Germany was war weary and had no inclination to continue fighting soon after Berlin fell.

Iraq on the other hand has a portion of its population long abused and spoiling for a fight against their alleged wrongdoers while it's getting an influx of foreign fighters from all over the place.

It's very unlikely that Iraq will become anywhere near as stable as Germany in the same period of time that Germany's rebuilding took.

He will be remembered as the man who professed to be a "uniter", then proceeded to plunge the most powerful country of his time into the most divided state it had ever been since its own civil war. He will also be remembered as the "leader" who chose politics over wisdom. A total failure, and a blight on the world that will take more than a generation to repair the damage he has wrought.

Wow when him and that Thatcher woman die, I wonder which one will oust Satan from his throne?

Do you think George W Bush will be one of the most famous/infamous presidents of all time, amongst those such as Abraham Lincoln, JFK and George Washington? Or will he be forgotten in the grand scheme of things?

Who?

Bush? No, we don't need any gardening done today, sorry.

It's very unlikely that Iraq will become anywhere near as stable as Germany in the same period of time that Germany's rebuilding took.

True enough. But we don't need Iraq to reach the level of stability of West Germany after WWII. We need to get it up to, say, the stability level of Jordan or Indonesia.

But you see, after Lincoln waged the Civil war, he won. America was one country. After Churchill waged WWII the Allies won. The world was not conquered by Nazis and (west) Germany became a stable democracy.

If after the Iraq war Iraq had become a stable democracy then sure, George would have been seen as a hero. But that shows now signs of ever happening.

Also, Hitler attacked Britain. The Confederacy attacked Fort Sumter. Hussein didn't do a damned thing to start this war. He had already agreed to all our demands before we invaded. The more people look into this war the more they see how misguided and utterly wrong it was. Morally, strategically, conceptually, just completely wrong.

And on top of that, George Dubya was a failure at everything before he became president. The story that shapes when one looks at the biography of George W. Bush is tragic in that Arthur Miller is no longer around to write it, because no one else could do justice to a figure as truly pathetic as Bush Junior.

It took more time for Germany to become a true democracy than we are giving to Iraq. The war critics are demanding that the whole process be like driving through a McDonalds drive through. Where you get democracy in just 10 seconds. Rome was not built in one day the Europeans like to say.
Neither is democracy. America itself, did not spring up overnight as a fully democratic equalitarian state either. It took years for America to become as democratic as it is today. It took Germany decades to become a full democracy. Yet we are demanding that Iraq become a full fledged Western World style democracy in one day.
Democracy has been created in Iraq but it's going to take years for it to fully developed. It hurts the cause of democracy to hand them over to Al Qaeda or to Iran just because they don't have McDonalds version of democracy.
For the first time in the last 1,000 years, Iraq has a democratic government directly elected by the people. Yet people insist Iraq is an evil pro-Bush dictatorship.
Women in Iraq now have equal rights with men. The only other place you see that is in Israel.

The comparison doesn't work, because the two wars are so completely different. Comparing Iraq to Switzerland in WWII doesn't make sense- Switzerland wasn't supporting the nazis, while Saddam's Iraq was funding and aiding terrorist groups.

There really is no past war that compares to the WOT. We are fighting a bunch of non-state actors whose goals are very difficult for us to comprehend. This is a really a new paradigm in warfare. So, it's not surprising that there will be some errors along the way.

The war against the Barbary pirates where we went to war against the nations of north africa who were sponsoring the pirates???? Looks like a precedent to me.

For a second I thought you meant the bridge...

But yeah, he'll be remembered. I mean, c'mon, he's the only president in history to have mass rallies and protests against him on his first inauguration! He's managed to accomplish what no one else has done: make 98 percent of the world think he's a dousche.

Again there has been no substantial proof that Sadam's regime supported Al Qaida in any way. In fact, Sadam's regime held vastly different values than Al Qaida so it is very unlikely that he did.


I take it that Hamas and Hezbollah don't count as terrorists organizations?????

GWB will be remembered all right-infamously!

I take it that Hamas and Hezbollah don't count as terrorists organizations?????That depends entirely on what one's position towards Israel is. Al Qaida has a completely different quality though, and they never had any connection to Saddam Hussein for many reason, not least of all that Saddam was never considered a good Muslim. You see, only the US is dumb enough to live by "my enemy's enemy is my friend". That's why both BinLaden and Saddam were the US's friends for so long.

You see, only the US is dumb enough to live by "my enemy's enemy is my friend". That's why both BinLaden and Saddam were the US's friends for so long.

Yes, nobody else has ever, ever done anything like that...except for, you know, every major world power in the entirety of human history.

Similarly, Iraq is chaotic now, but we are only 4 years into that situation. Germany was in really poor shape in 1949, too.

No, by 1949 Germany had two functional and stable governments and its economy was in the early phase of its Wirtschaftwunder. Iraq's government is virtually incompetent, the economy's in the tank, and they can't really get anything done to resolve the problem.

Women in Iraq now have equal rights with men. The only other place you see that is in Israel.

This is a blatant lie. Women in Iraq have now to suffer at the hands of religious fundocrats that were for years suppressed under Saddam. News coming from Iraq puts various fundamentalists groups attacking women who even go to work.

Under Saddam, women had much higher rights than what they do now under US imposed "law and order"

Like, literally, getting fired from every job he held since college. And, when his daddy finally gave him an oil company to run, it went bankrupt when it couldn't find oil in Bahrain!!

Yeah. Like that. And like how the only enterprise on which the Carlisle group ever lost money was the one they put Dubya in charge of. And they "asked him to leave." Literally, his Dad's club, and he sucked so bad they kicked him out.

Probably the only person in history to be fired from a Sinecure.

Bush? No, we don't need any gardening done today, sorry.

Does make me think of defoliant, though ... Agent something or other.

I take it that Hamas and Hezbollah don't count as terrorists organizations?????

I did not say that Sadam wasn't supporting terrorist organizations. I said he wasn't supporting Al Qaida, which was an argument made by Bush to help facilitate the attack on Iraq. At the time, neither Hamas, nor Hezbollah were involvd in 9/11, and neither has or have made an attack on any specific US interest, other than Isreal.

The war against the Barbary pirates where we went to war against the nations of north africa who were sponsoring the pirates???? Looks like a precedent to me.

Sort of, but there was no real religious component to that conflict. The barbary pirates were mostly Muslim, but the issue there was their piracy, not Islamic fundamentalism.

The war against the Barbary pirates where we went to war against the nations of north africa who were sponsoring the pirates???? Looks like a precedent to me.

Hey, perhaps you want to bring up the Treaty of Tripoli while you're at it?

One of the major problems with the Iraq government is the US chose the leaders from ex Iraqis that had lived outside of the country for almost a generation. They really didn't and don't have a clue what the people want.

Sure, there was an election, but which candidates were funded and by who?