NationStates Jolt Archive

Will he be remembered as this?

http://www.ethicalatheist.com/img/bush_heil.jpg

OR? simply this?

http://www.aramnaharaim.org/Photo/George-W-Bush.jpg

History Will Judge
__

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, September 19, 2008; Page A19

For the past 150 years, most American war presidents -- most notably Lincoln, Wilson and Roosevelt -- have entered (or reentered) office knowing war was looming. Not so George W. Bush. Not so the war on terror. The 9/11 attacks literally came out of the blue.

Indeed, the three presidential campaigns between the fall of the Berlin Wall and Sept. 11, 2001, were the most devoid of foreign policy debate of any in the 20th century. The commander-in-chief question that dominates our campaigns today was almost nowhere in evidence during our '90s holiday from history.

When I asked President Bush during an interview Monday to reflect on this oddity, he cast himself back to early 2001, recalling what he expected his presidency would be about: education reform, tax cuts and military transformation from a Cold War structure to a more mobile force adapted to smaller-scale 21st-century conflict.

But a wartime president he became. And that is how history will both remember and judge him.

Getting a jump on history, many books have already judged him. The latest by Bob Woodward describes the commander in chief as unusually aloof and detached. A more favorably inclined biographer might have called it equanimity.

In the hour I spent with the president (devoted mostly to foreign policy), that equanimity was everywhere in evidence -- not the resignation of a man in the twilight of his presidency but a sense of calm and confidence in eventual historical vindication.

It is precisely that quality that allowed him to order the surge in Iraq in the face of intense opposition from the political establishment (of both parties), the foreign policy establishment (led by the feckless Iraq Study Group), the military establishment (as chronicled by Woodward) and public opinion itself. The surge then effected the most dramatic change in the fortunes of an American war since the summer of 1864.


That kind of resolve requires internal fortitude. Some have argued that too much reliance on this internal compass is what got us into Iraq in the first place. But Bush was hardly alone in that decision. He had a majority of public opinion, the commentariat and Congress with him. In addition, history has not yet rendered its verdict on the Iraq war. We can say that it turned out to be longer and more costly than expected, surely. But the question remains as to whether the now-likely outcome -- transforming a virulently aggressive enemy state in the heart of the Middle East into a strategic ally in the war on terror -- was worth it. I suspect the ultimate answer will be far more favorable than it is today.

When I asked the president about his one unambiguous achievement, keeping us safe for seven years -- about 6 1/2 years longer than anybody thought possible just after Sept. 11 -- he was quick to credit both the soldiers keeping the enemy at bay abroad and the posse of law enforcement and intelligence officials hardening our defenses at home.

But he alluded also to some of the measures he had undertaken, including "listening in on the enemy" and "asking hardened killers about their plans." The CIA has already told us that interrogation of high-value terrorists such as Khalid Sheik Mohammed yielded more valuable intelligence than any other source. In talking about these measures, the president mentioned neither this testimony as to their efficacy nor the campaign of vilification against him that they occasioned. More equanimity still.

What the president did note with some pride, however, is that beyond preventing a second attack, he is bequeathing to his successor the kinds of powers and institutions the next president will need to prevent further attack and successfully prosecute the long war. And indeed, he does leave behind a Department of Homeland Security, reorganized intelligence services with newly developed capacities to share information and a revised FISA regime that grants broader and modernized wiretapping authority.

In this respect, Bush is much like Truman, who developed the sinews of war for a new era (the Department of Defense, the CIA, the NSA), expanded the powers of the presidency, established a new doctrine for active intervention abroad, and ultimately engaged in a war (Korea) -- also absent an attack on the United States -- that proved highly unpopular.

So unpopular that Truman left office disparaged and highly out of favor. History has revised that verdict. I have little doubt that Bush will be the subject of a similar reconsideration.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/18/AR2008091803049.html?referrer=emailarticle
Well, what do you think of this article? I'd highly recommend people to READ the article and not just comment bullshit, notably the part about Truman at the end. I find it interesting.

Whenever I talk with people about Bush, I don't blindly support him, in fact I disagree with him on a great MANY things. But I do always state that I think that we'll have to wait and see how Iraq turns out before we give a real judgement. It seems the article is holding a similar position.

It's like Colonel Christian Labb of the Chilean Military put it:
“Los gran hombres necesitan esperar a el juicio de la historia, y no a la justicia de hoy.”

1) Truman was rubbish.

2) So was Bush.

Will he be remembered as this?

http://www.ethicalatheist.com/img/bush_heil.jpg

OR? simply this?

http://www.aramnaharaim.org/Photo/George-W-Bush.jpg


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/18/AR2008091803049.html?referrer=emailarticle
Well, what do you think of this article? I'd highly recommend people to READ the article and not just comment bullshit, notably the part about Truman at the end. I find it interesting.

Whenever I talk with people about Bush, I don't blindly support him, in fact I disagree with him on a great MANY things. But I do always state that I think that we'll have to wait and see how Iraq turns out before we give a real judgement. It seems the article is holding a similar position.

It's like Colonel Christian Labb of the Chilean Military put it:
“Los gran hombres necesitan esperar a el juicio de la historia, y no a la justicia de hoy.”

It's partisan bullshit.

History will not remember Bush quite as this cheerful chappy wishes it to be, because a lot of the assertions made in the cute little essay are horseshit, or nothing better than opinion, at best. I notice it completely overlooks the faked intelligence documents, and I notice it claims the 'Surge' as the main (only, even) contributing factor in the decrease in violence.

Perhaps this is an early attempt at revisionist history? Get in there and write how it 'should have been' before the facts get too well known?

Winners, they say, write history. If whoever comes into power puts Bush behind bars for all the power abuses he has done, or just gets him in court with full exposure, he will be a loser in history, no matter what.

History will not judge bush too kindly for all the damage that he and the neo-cons have done to this planet.
Okay 9/11 was Osama bin Laden's fault not Bush's. History won't blame him for going into Afghanistan and undoing some of the damage caused by the CIA under Reagan for supplying the weaponary to the Islamists for their anti-Soviet war and who later turned it their own people and later, Western troops.
But history will judge him for:
1. Invading Iraq (As Jay Leno said "Operation Iraqi Freedom" was going to be called "Operation Iraqi Liberation" until we discovered what the initials stood for.)
2. Alienating key US allies who disagreed with his strategy in Invading Iraq - especially as it meant leaving unfinished business in Afghanistan - thereby being the only US President to start two land wars in Asia!
3. Plunging the US economy into trillions of dollars of debt
4. Not signing the Kyoto Protocol - further tarnishing America's image abroad
5. Allowing corporations like Enron to lie and cheat
6. Neglecting America's poor - Louisiana being a great example
7. Reintroducing debunked theories like Creationism back into mainstream education
8. Moving towards a police state with Department of Homeland security legislation.

That'll do for now - I'm sure I've missed a few things. Let's face it - he's the best argument Obama could have for Change.

Yeah, I think everything has been said for me here on this subject.

Here is how he will be remembered:

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/Gollumbush.jpg

:D

The 9/11 attacks literally came out of the blue.
No they didn't. There were plenty of reports warning about Al Qaeda planning something major. Bush didn't bother to read any of them - he was too busy holidaying on his ranch for most of his first 2 years.

a sense of calm and confidence in eventual historical vindication.
Sounds to me like he's either in total denial or, worse, a zealot who believes his the only way. Zealots are extremely dangerous people to give the reins of power to.

"asking hardened killers about their plans."
so torture is considered, 'asking' in Bush's mind? Truly he is a zealot.

one unambiguous achievement, keeping us safe for seven years
those magic anti-tiger rocks have their uses, don't they?

so torture is considered, 'asking' in Bush's mind? Truly he is a zealot.




I never ask anybody anything without first attaching electrodes to their privates.

Krauthammer is a famous conservative with some strong opinions that naturally color his analysis - not that I think he's being dishonest, but it's important to note his ideological proximity to Bush. I think it's likely that conservatives will remember Bush well, and depending on the outcomes in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's possible that the public in general will remember Bush well, more or less. .

The shrub will be remembered as the worst President ever.

So he was President during 9/11? What was spectacular about that?

The shrub had the major powers basically ready to do anything we asked. I think even the French were there for us.

A brilliant man could have taken that (I don't like the phrase) "political capitol" and done some great things. Opened the doors to well for a lack of a better description define the foundation of a new world order.

Instead he had to "one up" daddy and pissed it all away.

Poppy Bush had the savings and loan bail out. Shrub has the banking bailout. I believe poppy Bush at least set up loans(correct me if I am wrong) through the oh heck was it the RTC group. I think the Shrub will give the bail out free of charge.

Tangent: I find it interesting that Conservative Republicans tend to get nasty over Socialistic ideas and yet have little problems Socializing losses.

Anyway...

Charles can have his opinions but until we can get at all the classified documentation; we may never have a full picture of what went on. I think it's been argued that that Shrub has had the most secrative administration. It was said shrub didn't know of any attacks and yet the Presidential Daily Briefs were classified(as I understand they still are).

So what exactly has the shrub done that was remarkable? What has he done that would say he was a great President?

History gets rewritten every century or so. Bush could be labeled a hero one century, and a demon the other. Just depends on your ideology at the time.

The verdict will be: He's done a heckuva job!

Catch 22 is a great read. I can't remember if Colonel Cathcart or Colonel Korn kept saying this line: "I have a natural habit of getting people to agree
with each other", The moment he left the room, Yossarian or other characters would say, "He has a natural habit of getting people to agree on what a prick he is".

That's how Bush may go down in history! (He reminds me so much of a character from Joseph Heller's great novel!)

Here is how he will be remembered:

http://www.freakingnews.com/Pictures/1/FN-AWARDS-Best-George-W-Bush-Picture.jpg

:D

As a Big Red X? I like that.

So what exactly has the shrub done that was remarkable? What has he done that would say he was a great President?

Prove that a significant portion of the American populace are still willing to lavish rewards on incompetent business managers just because they're "someone they can have a beer with"?

An intresting Idea. But I can say for every single Wartime president who had a had negative criticism during the war and was then elevated in standing there is also a Wartime president who had lots of criticism and continued to be ranked as crap. For every FDR there is a Madison(war of 1812). I think it will be interesting what history makes of Bush but the sad thing is we have to wait to find out.

Bush will be remembered, for better or for worse, as one of the most effective presidents serving at one of the most chaotic times in American history. He has accomplished a lot and dealt with a lot during his time in office, and I think the years to come will finally show whether or not that legacy is something to praise or something to revile. Right now, things aren't looking too good for him but to be fair a lot of the negatives are associated with things he realistically couldn't control.

He will ALWAYS be remembered as the man who invaded a COUTRY over NOTHING. And there's nothing any of its praisers can do about that.

He will ALWAYS be remembered as the man who invaded a COUTRY over NOTHING. And there's nothing any of its praisers can do about that.

Yeah, but look at how many people still like Kennedy and Johnson...

Yeah, but look at how many people still like Kennedy and Johnson...

Don't get me wrong: If I could, I'd pee on LBJ's grave, vomit on his corpse, and make a ritual to seal his spirit in the depths of Hell, but that's because of what he did to MY country. In yours, he signed desegregation into law.

Don't get me wrong: If I could, I'd pee on LBJ's grave, vomit on his corpse, and make a ritual to seal his spirit in the depths of Hell, but that's because of what he did to MY country. In yours, he signed desegregation into law.

Well, and he killed 50,000+ young men and wounded thousands more in a conflict that had no real basis other than fighting an enemy that posed no real threat to the United States.

Well, and he killed 50,000+ young men and wounded thousands more in a conflict that had no real basis other than fighting an enemy that posed no real threat to the United States.

I'm sure he did; and I'm well aware of what his party was (44 years ago, but just saying that to get it out of the way). But speaking as a native of the country that got turned into a dictatorship with his support at the time, I gotta say that, were I alive and politically aware then, I'd be too busy trying to evade capture and torturous interrogation to care much about the young men of the country that supported the coup in mine in the first place.

At any rate, at least it can be said LBJ signed desegregation into law. What did Bush do?

Don't get me wrong: If I could, I'd pee on LBJ's grave, vomit on his corpse, and make a ritual to seal his spirit in the depths of Hell, but that's because of what he did to MY country. In yours, he signed desegregation into law.

On the hand, Johnson recognized that Vietnam was turning into a clusterfuck and decided to not to seek re-election. We can't say that much for Dear Leader and Iraq.

On the hand, Johnson recognized that Vietnam was turning into a clusterfuck and decided to not to seek re-election. We can't say that much for Dear Leader and Iraq.

Yeah, but the worst part is that Nixon will always get credit for getting us out of there. Richard goddamn Milhouse Nixon.

Yeah, but the worst part is that Nixon will always get credit for getting us out of there. Richard goddamn Milhouse Nixon.

Not that it matters, as not even the Republicans can stand Richard Nixon.

Not that it matters, as not even the Republicans can stand Richard Nixon.

I think the only person who can stand him is Mao. Hopefully the whole Cold War crew is sharing a room in the afterlife, all sides included.

<futurama> Nixon's BAAAACK!!!</futurama>

<futurama> Nixon's BAAAACK!!!</futurama>

I would still be more concerned about zombie Agnew.

Yeah, but the worst part is that Nixon will always get credit for getting us out of there. Richard goddamn Milhouse Nixon.

Naturally, because he did. :tongue: For practical, rather than broadly ideological reasons, of course, but the war could've gone on longer.

Not that it matters, as not even the Republicans can stand Richard Nixon.

That's a fact, though he still deserves credit for implementing desegregation, signing the Endangered Species Act, opening relations with China, and a few other things. It just isn't very smart to praise him, even where praise is due, for obvious reasons - I still remember the reaction among the (mostly conservative) group I was watching the GOP convention with in '04, when Gov. Schwarzenegger praised Nixon as one of his role models. Not such a good idea. :tongue:

Well, what do you think of this article?Um, war was looming. Everyone I know was wondering when and whether Bush would invade Iraq well before September 11th.

Ironic isn't it that sometimes "good guy" Democrats like JFK can get the US into a crazy war and "bad guy" Republicans can get the US out. Now what would have happened if Mayor Daley hadn't swung Illinois JFK's way?

History won't remember Bush, or anything else that happened before the great Nuclear war in which all humanity is destroyed and the Earth is inherited by mutant rats. Also, the rats will sing and drive Volkswagens.

Tiny little Volkswagens with tiny little vases built in! That'll be the most adorable nuclear holocaust ever.

I'd highly recommend people to READ the article and not just comment bullshit,
That's difficult. As I understand, you have bolded all the bullshit we shouldn't respond to. But there's little left if we take it out.



A "cute little bunny who wanted to be a peacetime president" would not start the wars. US wasn't forced into a war like in 1941, it was president's choice to respond to terrorism with wars against the wrong targets, ultimately failing to achieve even the claimed goals. CIA sting operations would have a better chance of actually killing Osama or damaging Al-Qaeda - but, of course, they wouldn't satisfy the lust for revenge. Bush was fighting a house fly with a sledgehammer.

Um, war was looming. Everyone I know was wondering when and whether Bush would invade Iraq well before September 11th.

I spent the better part of the 90's in uniform, wondering when we were going to invade Iraq.

Bush was fighting a house fly with a sledgehammer.

In a china shop.

As a Big Red X? I like that.

All fixed. :p

http://images.villagevoice.com/issues/0632/tmw-big.jpg
Just about sums up my feelings...

Will he be remembered as this?

[
OR? simply this?


Dangerous warmonger, or gormless idiot.....The latter, with pretensions to the former. Dick Cheney is the one worthy of more consideration.

Catch 22 is a great read. I can't remember if Colonel Cathcart or Colonel Korn kept saying this line: "I have a natural habit of getting people to agree
with each other", The moment he left the room, Yossarian or other characters would say, "He has a natural habit of getting people to agree on what a prick he is".

That's how Bush may go down in history! (He reminds me so much of a character from Joseph Heller's great novel!)

Cathcart, probably. Korn was the smart one.

History won't remember Bush, or anything else that happened before the great Nuclear war in which all humanity is destroyed and the Earth is inherited by mutant rats. Also, the rats will sing and drive Volkswagens.

So, it's a Disney remake of Mad Max?

That's difficult. As I understand, you have bolded all the bullshit we shouldn't respond to. But there's little left if we take it out.
Incorrect, you understood wrong.

I always bold parts of importance in my OP's because there are always the fools that won't read the OP and/or the article quoted...so by bolding it they are atleast more likely to glance at parts of it.

Incorrect, you understood wrong.

I always bold parts of importance in my OP's because there are always the fools that won't read the OP and/or the article quoted...so by bolding it they are atleast more likely to glance at parts of it.

The parts that interest you in an attempt to "prove" the bullshit du jour. Got it.

Incorrect, you understood wrong.

I always bold parts of importance in my OP's because there are always the fools that won't read the OP and/or the article quoted...so by bolding it they are atleast more likely to glance at parts of it.
Well then...



The 9/11 attacks literally came out of the blue.
For the most unconcerned of civilians only. True, people didn't know what would happen and where, but terrorism tactics were becoming increasingly more common since 80s.

[praise skipped]


Some have argued that too much reliance on this internal compass is what got us into Iraq in the first place. But Bush was hardly alone in that decision. He had a majority of public opinion,
No, he hadn't.

transforming a virulently aggressive enemy state in the heart of the Middle East into a strategic ally in the war on terror
This statement raises the question of how realistic it is.

When I asked the president about his one unambiguous achievement, keeping us safe for seven years
Safe from whom?

-- about 6 1/2 years longer than anybody thought possible just after Sept. 11
Right. So if there was one terrorist act, there had to be thousands in planning, all prevented by the Bush Power.

Iraq War was not an attack on Al-Qaeda, it was Second Afghanistan War which was targeted against it.

America needs to get over itself. America is a great country, but it needs to quit thinking that the world is its own to do with as it wishes.

We need to be leaders for good, not evil.

Just because America is the biggest kid in the playground is not a reason to use that power to take what it wants. Hussein was not a threat to the USA, but to his own people. Yes, something needed to be done, but did it have to be the schoolyard bully going in, dragging a few others along, and trying to create a clone of America?

An excellent perspective on the world today is Fareed Zakaria's "The Post-American World"--great insight on how America needs to adjust to the fact that the rest of the world has grown, has opinions, and does not have to be seen as "the enemy."

I never ask anybody anything without first attaching electrodes to their privates.

So sigged.

I never ask anybody anything without first attaching electrodes to their privates.

That's because you're Desperate Measures, and that's why only Desperate Times ever call for you.

So, it's a Disney remake of Mad Max?
Actually, I was thinking more like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_&_Rule).

I read this article in the Washington Post, and still have the complaint I did Friday or Thursday: how did Roosevelt see war on the horizon months before the Nazis took power and more than six years before it actually began?

Safe from whom?

Not the white Christians with anthrax, that's for sure.

Not that it matters, as not even the Republicans can stand Richard Nixon.

If only that were true. My partner believes that Nixon was the greatest American president. Regan being second in his eyes. *shudders* Sadly there are still quite a few who hold that opinion. At least he dislikes the current Bush.

It goes without saying we very rarely discuss politics at home. Though it was mildly amusing to watch his expression when I told him I was a socialist. :D Priceless.

Barack obamaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We need to be leaders for good, not evil.

I disagree. This country was founded on evil principles, and evil is what has made it what it is today.

Krauthammer has his head so far up the GOP's ass, I can't tell where he stops and they start. And this:

In this respect, Bush is much like Truman, who developed the sinews of war for a new era (the Department of Defense, the CIA, the NSA), expanded the powers of the presidency, established a new doctrine for active intervention abroad, and ultimately engaged in a war (Korea) -- also absent an attack on the United States -- that proved highly unpopular.

So unpopular that Truman left office disparaged and highly out of favor. History has revised that verdict. I have little doubt that Bush will be the subject of a similar reconsideration.

Is just plain ridiculous.

Bush is a "war President" because he chose to be. Anyone applying common sense understands that you can't declare war on something intangible or multi-faceted (witness the wars on Poverty, Drugs, Crime, etc.). Comparing Iraq to Korea is just plain crazy.

The commentators who trot out the old saws about history being written by those victorious in a war, or who attempt comparisons between current situations and the dim and distant past, all seem to be ignoring one very important facet of the modern world, which is this... the history that has been recorded from the later years of the 20th century onwards does not rely on any one set of news sources. We no longer draw our information from a very limited set of propagandists or apologists, as was the way of things prior to the wide-scale availability of the Internet, and so it is no longer possible for the more unsavoury aspects of politics - whether domestic or international - to be swept under the carpet and hidden from the scrutiny of those that follow.

In a very real sense, the media content that we argue over at the moment; all the anti-Bush, anti-Blair, anti-Obama, anti-Brown, anti-whoever rants and accusations; all the atrocities reported in various countries around the world; everything, is the history of our times. Barring a disaster of the sort of magnitude that would render human history irrelevant, all of the digitised information that now exists will persist down the ages.

Look around you, assay the news content relating to Bush (or whoever) over the last decade or so, and weigh it up as positive reporting against negative reporting. You'll get a reasonable idea of how these people will be remembered in the years to come.

Longhaul, you're living up to your name. It's true that politicians are remembered much more for their legacy and not for all the administrivia. Some politicians will be remebered for starting wars, while others will be remembered for finishing them. It will be some other president who is remembered for finishing the two land wars in Asia started by George II. (Remember the mantra, America: "No more land wars in Asia! No more land wars in Asia!")
History will indeed remember the "Nightmare on Wall St" and how a neo-con administration used neo-Keynesian stategies to bail out what had been a poorly regulated market. (This was a mixed result for Bush).
History will remember the flooding of New Orleans with a US President caught completely with his pants down because he had spent a lot of the money that should have gone on flood prevention measures, going to finance a nast little war in an oil-rich country.
History will also remember a "climate-change skeptic" who wouldn't sign the Kyoto Protocol that led continued global warming and more droughts and hurricanes, not just for America but for the world.
History will point the finger at a president who presided over a massive reallocation of treasury funds that went from the poor to the rich and contributed to many thousands of citizens going under, losing their homes and their jobs.
Overall? He'll get an F (or at best an E) from the History teacher.

those magic anti-tiger rocks have their uses, don't they?

I lol'd at this.

Anyway, I agree with you wholeheartedly.


Bush is a schmuck.

Iraq had no WMDs, cost shit tons of money, and was in general a waste. And our economy is tanking.

Truman did not preside over an economic collapse. The war Lincoln fought was necissary. No matter what, comparing Bush here is pointless.

There were plenty of reports warning about Al Qaeda planning something major. Bush didn't bother to read any of them - he was too busy holidaying on his ranch for most of his first 2 years.

Those were the days. Why worry about some towel-wearing Quran-thumpers when you can have the day off?

Those were the days. Why worry about some towel-wearing Quran-thumpers when you can have the day off?

Plus it was Clinton's people who were giving the warnings and we all know how untrustworthy they were.

Krauthammer has to defend Bush because Bush happily followed this assclown into the abyss and took the US with him. It was Krauthammer and the other neo-cons who produced the intellectual argument of Middle East transformation that gave Bush the patina of credibility for his invasion, and it was Krauthammer and the other neo-cons who still cannot seperate, even as of the writing mentioned above, the Iraqis from Al-Queda, one of whom had nothing to do with the other.

Honestly, I'd trust Sarah Palin's unvarnished judgment on foreign policy before I'd trust Krauthammer's malignant assessment.

But as for Bush. What will history make of him? He's an Alcibiades minus the talent plus blind loyalty, nothing more, and his single greatest achievement is the modern equivalent of the Sicilian Expedition (seriously, look at the parallels: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicilian_Expedition). The saddest thing is that it's the people advising him who most frequently claimed to have learned the lessons of Thucydides.

It's partisan bullshit.

History will not remember Bush quite as this cheerful chappy wishes it to be, because a lot of the assertions made in the cute little essay are horseshit, or nothing better than opinion, at best. I notice it completely overlooks the faked intelligence documents, and I notice it claims the 'Surge' as the main (only, even) contributing factor in the decrease in violence.

Perhaps this is an early attempt at revisionist history? Get in there and write how it 'should have been' before the facts get too well known?

Perhaps? Try a blatant attempt at revisionism.

Ironic isn't it that sometimes "good guy" Democrats like JFK can get the US into a crazy war and "bad guy" Republicans can get the US out. Now what would have happened if Mayor Daley hadn't swung Illinois JFK's way?

The secret bombings in Cambodia would have happened earlier.

The secret bombings in Cambodia would have happened earlier.

Very possibly - Nixon did some really low things apart from Watergate. His being President in 1963 may have meant that the Cuban Missile crisis that JFK successfully negoiated could have turned into WWIII.:eek:

Ironic isn't it that sometimes "good guy" Democrats like JFK can get the US into a crazy war and "bad guy" Republicans can get the US out. Now what would have happened if Mayor Daley hadn't swung Illinois JFK's way?

Check your history.
US involvement in Vietnam began under Eisenhower, a Republican.

Bush got us into Iraq, and he, too, is a Republican.

Perhaps? Try a blatant attempt at revisionism.

And he's not the only one trying. The neocon movement and the Bush henchmen seems to be out in force to create their own reality. Like David Frum (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/users/login.php?story_id=4426&URL=http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4426) and Robert Kagan.

Bush will be remembered for his disastrous failures.

And he's not the only one trying. The neocon movement and the Bush henchmen seems to be out in force to create their own reality. Like David Frum (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/users/login.php?story_id=4426&URL=http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4426) and Robert Kagan.

Bush will be remembered for his disastrous failures.

Why so optimistic? People did the same thing with Reagan and that succeeded.

Why so optimistic? People did the same thing with Reagan and that succeeded.

I'm optimistic because this time, there aren't many outside of the US (especially in Europe) who will be inclined to portray Bush in a positive light. I think the situation with previous presidents was very different in that respect.

I think the only person who can stand him is Mao. Hopefully the whole Cold War crew is sharing a room in the afterlife, all sides included.

There is an ancient Vulcan proverb that says, "Only Nixon can go to China." :tongue:

You know, you just gave me a great idea for a siticom. I can see it now, "Nixon and Mao: The College Years". I'll be raking in the dough...

http://images.villagevoice.com/issues/0632/tmw-big.jpg
Just about sums up my feelings...

Brillioant Newer Burmeciea, just brill!

Check your history.
US involvement in Vietnam began under Eisenhower, a Republican.

Bush got us into Iraq, and he, too, is a Republican.

Eisenhower just sent in "military advisors". JFK sent in troops; then LBJ sent in a whole shitload more.

I think it's likely that conservatives will remember Bush well

Some will. Some will remember him as the man who screwed up so badly he got a black man into office.

And I have to laugh at the original article. A guy named Krauthammer being pro-war? You don't say.

Catch 22 is a great read. I can't remember if Colonel Cathcart or Colonel Korn kept saying this line: "I have a natural habit of getting people to agree
with each other", The moment he left the room, Yossarian or other characters would say, "He has a natural habit of getting people to agree on what a prick he is".

That's how Bush may go down in history! (He reminds me so much of a character from Joseph Heller's great novel!)

Well, he's always said he was a uniter.

Krauthammer has to defend Bush because Bush happily followed this assclown into the abyss and took the US with him. It was Krauthammer and the other neo-cons who produced the intellectual argument of Middle East transformation that gave Bush the patina of credibility for his invasion, and it was Krauthammer and the other neo-cons who still cannot seperate, even as of the writing mentioned above, the Iraqis from Al-Queda, one of whom had nothing to do with the other.

Honestly, I'd trust Sarah Palin's unvarnished judgment on foreign policy before I'd trust Krauthammer's malignant assessment.

But as for Bush. What will history make of him? He's an Alcibiades minus the talent plus blind loyalty, nothing more, and his single greatest achievement is the modern equivalent of the Sicilian Expedition (seriously, look at the parallels: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicilian_Expedition). The saddest thing is that it's the people advising him who most frequently claimed to have learned the lessons of Thucydides.

I'm pretty sure you hit something there. :hail:

I read this article in the Washington Post, and still have the complaint I did Friday or Thursday: how did Roosevelt see war on the horizon months before the Nazis took power and more than six years before it actually began?

Maybe Roosevelt had read Mein Kampf.
Blind Freddie and his dog would have seen war brewing after Hitler came to power and the Japanese army expanded into China and the Pacific. Many people knew it was coming - Churchill was an early warner of the danger of a remilitarised Germany.
Then there was that nasty little "civil war" in Spain where the world stood by and watched a socialist democracy get kicked to death by Franco's troops, Hitler's Luftwaffe and Mussolini's "Condor Legion".
The world knew it was coming all right.
Lucky for the world, that there was a Churchill and an FDR.

I read this article in the Washington Post, and still have the complaint I did Friday or Thursday: how did Roosevelt see war on the horizon months before the Nazis took power and more than six years before it actually began?

My guess was that he saw the economic troubles in Germany and the punitive measures of the Versailles Treaty and realized that it created the perfect storm for a totalitarian regime to take power. Recall that Mussolini was already in power in Germany and the military was running the show in Japan, and both regimes shared much in common with the Nazi ideology.

On an unrelated note, no matter how much I despise the Nazi regime's policies, I find few things more satisfying than the capitulation of France. Especially the signing of their treaty in the same rail car at Compiegne as in 1919...that was pretty damn impressive and one hell of a kick in the ass.

On an unrelated note, no matter how much I despise the Nazi regime's policies, I find few things more satisfying than the capitulation of France. Especially the signing of their treaty in the same rail car at Compiegne as in 1919...that was pretty damn impressive and one hell of a kick in the ass.

And to most Americans, it's also a justification for the jingoistic Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys Who Couldn't Fight the Common Cold insults.

And to most Americans, it's also a justification for the jingoistic Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys Who Couldn't Fight the Common Cold insults.

Yeah, although truth be told the French were kind of in a bind to begin with, so they couldn't hold out for much longer than they did. Not that the British helped much when the BEF got pinned down and nearly annihilated at Dunkirk...

That being said, the real question is how many people imitate Hitler's pose in front of the Eiffel Tower.

On an unrelated note, no matter how much I despise the Nazi regime's policies, I find few things more satisfying than the capitulation of France.

For me, that's one of the most cringe-worthy historical events ever, comparable only to Napoleon's disaster in Russia and Napoleon's loss at Waterloo.

Post-1789 France is the only country for which I feel anything even approaching nationalist sentiment. Which is really weird, thinking about it... I have no connection whatsoever to the people, the language, or the culture.

My guess was that he saw the economic troubles in Germany and the punitive measures of the Versailles Treaty and realized that it created the perfect storm for a totalitarian regime to take power. Recall that Mussolini was already in power in Germany...

Wow, did my school's history books ever get that one wrong, then...

Then there was that nasty little "civil war" in Spain where the world stood by and watched a socialist democracy get kicked to death by Franco's troops, Hitler's Luftwaffe and Mussolini's "Condor Legion".
The world knew it was coming all right.The Condor Legion was made up entirely of Germans in employ of the Wehrmacht. Mussolini had nothing to do with it.

On an unrelated note, no matter how much I despise the Nazi regime's policies, I find few things more satisfying than the capitulation of France. Especially the signing of their treaty in the same rail car at Compiegne as in 1919...that was pretty damn impressive and one hell of a kick in the ass.That particular act pleased just about every German, whether they hated Hitler or not. Just shows how universally reviled the treaty was among Germans and how big of a fuck up it was in creating a lasting peace.

That particular act pleased just about every German, whether they hated Hitler or not. Just shows how universally reviled the treaty was among Germans and how big of a fuck up it was in creating a lasting peace.

I could see how that might be. Considering France in particular drained Germany of wealth in the form of reparations following the war, any revenge for that act must have been quite satisfying.

Of course, the Germans took it a step farther than just forcing their capitulation by making France pay for the costs of the 300,000 or so occupation troops in the country (at an inflated rate, no less), a factor which led to quite severe shortages of, well, everything in France by 1944. If it counts for anything, though, WWII finally marked the end of the endless revanchist policies of the two nations and produced something resembling friendly relations.

How things are now, I have no real idea.

Wow, did my school's history books ever get that one wrong, then...

My thoughts exactly. I was always taught Mussolini was the dictator in Italy.

What do my teachers know? Apperantly nothing ;).

My guess was that he saw the economic troubles in Germany and the punitive measures of the Versailles Treaty and realized that it created the perfect storm for a totalitarian regime to take power. Recall that Mussolini was already in power in Germany and the military was running the show in Japan, and both regimes shared much in common with the Nazi ideology.
Maybe, but Germany certainly wasn't the only country doing poorly. If Roosevelt did predict the countries with similar circumstances would end up causing a war, he would have guessed Italy, or Japan, or maybe the Soviet Union, places that actually had totalitarian regimes in place.

EDIT: As an aside, I'm in the middle of Escape from Freedom, Erich Fromm's analysis of the psychological conditions that lead to totalitarianism. I don't know how accurate the psychology is today, but it's a good read; I recommend it.

I think it's likely that conservatives will remember Bush well...

Depending on how you define the term "conservative". Whether or not Bush's judgment in Afghanistan and Iraq is viewed well by history, he will be remembered for his extraordinary extensions of executive power. Old-fashioned Goldwater-style conservatives are no fans of this -- unless one believes it's all in the name of a clandestine effort to prove that government doesn't work (a la The Shock Doctrine.)

To bring up Catch-22 again, Heller would happily concur that there's a significant number of Americans who are either highly suspicious or openly contemptuous of the concept of democracy. Those kind of "conservatives" will certainly remember Bush well.

EDIT: As an aside, I'm in the middle of Escape from Freedom, Erich Fromm's analysis of the psychological conditions that lead to totalitarianism. I don't know how accurate the psychology is today, but it's a good read; I recommend it.

If you like that, try Fromm's May Man Prevail? written 20 years after Escape from Freedom. It's pretty socialist in some ways, but it's interesting even for non-socialists to read an intelligent man's argument against the inevitability of a nuclear standoff.

To bring up Catch-22 again, Heller would happily concur that there's a significant number of Americans who are either highly suspicious or openly contemptuous of the concept of democracy.

Are the morons who try to shut up criticism by yelling "anti-American" at opponents part of those? Because it would explain so much that I'd want to dance a polka with you! ^_^

The Condor Legion was made up entirely of Germans in employ of the Wehrmacht. Mussolini had nothing to do with it.

You're right Laerod. :$ The Condor Legion was definitely made up of Germans. The Italian black shirts were know as "The Black Arrows", "The Black flames" and the "Will of God" but there were upwards of 50,000 Italian blackshirts. Theyt performed poorly however against the Garibaldi Brigade (Italian anti-fascists) at the Battle of Guadalajara where the Blackshirts were routed.

Will he be remembered as this?

http://www.ethicalatheist.com/img/bush_heil.jpg

OR? simply this?

http://www.aramnaharaim.org/Photo/George-W-Bush.jpg


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/18/AR2008091803049.html?referrer=emailarticle
Well, what do you think of this article? I'd highly recommend people to READ the article and not just comment bullshit, notably the part about Truman at the end. I find it interesting.

Whenever I talk with people about Bush, I don't blindly support him, in fact I disagree with him on a great MANY things. But I do always state that I think that we'll have to wait and see how Iraq turns out before we give a real judgement. It seems the article is holding a similar position.

It's like Colonel Christian Labb of the Chilean Military put it:
“Los gran hombres necesitan esperar a el juicio de la historia, y no a la justicia de hoy.”

Historians as a collective haven't all reversed their opinions on Truman... Total 180 degree changes in opinion in an entire field rarely happens. As with anything else in history there will be numerous schools of thought on Bush, just like every other leader... Regardless of how Iraq turns out.

For me, that's one of the most cringe-worthy historical events ever, comparable only to Napoleon's disaster in Russia and Napoleon's loss at Waterloo.

Post-1789 France is the only country for which I feel anything even approaching nationalist sentiment. Which is really weird, thinking about it... I have no connection whatsoever to the people, the language, or the culture.
Curious. :p

I'd honestly like to know your reasoning behind that, if I may. :)

On an unrelated note, no matter how much I despise the Nazi regime's policies, I find few things more satisfying than the capitulation of France. Especially the signing of their treaty in the same rail car at Compiegne as in 1919...that was pretty damn impressive and one hell of a kick in the ass.
Agreed. To be fair, I do admire many things about France, notably their contributions to the Enlightenment, which I hold dearly in my mind but there is just something that does not mesh with me about France. It's just not my kind of place/language/culture. I've been there and I have French friends and the people were great, but...just really not my kind of place. I've always and always will prefer German-speaking Europe.

*shrugs shoulders*

One thing I do find more satisfying than the German victory over France in WWII though is the Prussian victory against France and then the crowning of the German Emperor in Versailles. Mainly because it was ultimate payback....and my family were Prussians back then.:p

Will he be remembered as this?

http://www.ethicalatheist.com/img/bush_heil.jpg

OR? simply this?

http://www.aramnaharaim.org/Photo/George-W-Bush.jpg

Neither...

...THIS (http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlLA/original/bush-door-china.jpg)

What a great photo delator! It's not photoshopped is it?

What a great photo delator! It's not photoshopped is it?You missed the delightful occasion where Bush visited China and tried to leave through a locked door? Man, you've just disproven that that's what he'll be remembered for...

The conflict in Korea stemmed from the obligations of an alliance that was hardly a secret. Iraq was TOTALLY unprovoked. Apples and vacuum cleaners.

My thoughts exactly. I was always taught Mussolini was the dictator in Italy.

What do my teachers know? Apperantly nothing ;).

Ah, it's Europe... they're all the same over there....

The conflict in Korea stemmed from the obligations of an alliance that was hardly a secret. Iraq was TOTALLY unprovoked. Apples and vacuum cleaners.

Is that metaphor yours or someone else's? :D

What a great photo delator! It's not photoshopped is it?

That's a classic! :eek2:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHjIb6trxBI

Maybe, but Germany certainly wasn't the only country doing poorly. If Roosevelt did predict the countries with similar circumstances would end up causing a war, he would have guessed Italy, or Japan, or maybe the Soviet Union, places that actually had totalitarian regimes in place.

Well, if you look at history, all of those countries did cause major wars prior to WWII. Italy was already fast expanding in Africa and the Balkans prior to the invasion of Poland and Japan had been at war for easily most of the past decade, starting with the Mukden Incident and the creation of Manchukuo in 1931.

The Soviet Union, of course, was not in a position to really fight a major war, although by 1941 there was some pretty strong evidence that a preemptive strike against Germany was in the works, a plan that no doubt compromised Soviet defenses in the immediate aftermath of Barbarossa (although purging the Red Army's best generals didn't help...).

EDIT: As an aside, I'm in the middle of Escape from Freedom, Erich Fromm's analysis of the psychological conditions that lead to totalitarianism. I don't know how accurate the psychology is today, but it's a good read; I recommend it.

I have plenty of time to read, so I'll probably end up getting it at the library.

Bush is neither the worst, most tyrannical, most corrupt or most ineffective.
Overall Harding, Nixon, Grant, Carter, Buchanan and Johnson were far worse. Jefferson. John Adams, Lincoln and Roosevelt were far more "tyrannical", Grant and Harding were more corrupt and Buchanan and Pierce were easily less effective.

That's a classic! :eek2:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHjIb6trxBI

How amazing Gravlen!
The last comment made on the video was "He then tried to look for a way out!"
Maybe that's what Bush is trying to do with a lot of messes he contributed to:
To look for a way out.

You know in between loathing him and laughing at him, sometimes we can actually feel sorry for him.
There! I said it!:rolleyes:

Bush is neither the worst, most tyrannical, most corrupt or most ineffective.
Overall Harding, Nixon, Grant, Carter, Buchanan and Johnson were far worse. Jefferson. John Adams, Lincoln and Roosevelt were far more "tyrannical", Grant and Harding were more corrupt and Buchanan and Pierce were easily less effective.

No, but the results of his incompetence are the most widespread of any American President to date.

And to be fair:

Neither Harding nor Grant themselves were corrupt. They were merely gullible enough to allow corrupt friends into their administration and let the shitstorm fly as a result. Hmm... you could almost say that about Dubya. Almost.

Lincoln and Roosevelt suspended civil liberties in the midst of a war neither side started. Can't say that about Dubya and "The War on Terror".

Buchanan was criminally neglegent in his term, letting the South have its way all the way up to the Secession and dumped the Civil War in Lincoln's lap.

Pierce was negligent as well, although not to the degree Buchanan was. It also didn't help that his own delegates issued the Ostend Manifesto behind his back.

No, but the results of his incompetence are the most widespread of any American President to date.

And to be fair:

Neither Harding nor Grant themselves were corrupt. They were merely gullible enough to allow corrupt friends into their administration and let the shitstorm fly as a result. Hmm... you could almost say that about Dubya. Almost.

Lincoln and Roosevelt suspended civil liberties in the midst of a war neither side started. Can't say that about Dubya and "The War on Terror".

Buchanan was criminally neglegent in his term, letting the South have its way all the way up to the Secession and dumped the Civil War in Lincoln's lap.

Pierce was negligent as well, although not to the degree Buchanan was. It also didn't help that his own delegates issued the Ostend Manifesto behind his back.
Yes but that's still their fault, if Bush's advisers were as corrupt who would be blamed?

Civil liberties are civil liberties, Bush hardly has suppressed freedom of speech like Lincoln or Roosevelt.