# President George W Bush's place in history



## a_majoor (13 Jan 2008)

Historiography follows trends of the time it was written, rather than the time it actually purports to study, so we know future historians will report this Presidency in different lights. You only have to read Lord Black's biographies of FDR and Richard M Nixon, or Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln by Doris Kearns Goodwin to realize that opinions change and evolve.

Salim Mansur points out one aspect of George W Bush's presidency which will fully engage historians for centuries to come in this article:

http://www.torontosun.com/Comment/2008/01/12/pf-4769244.html



> *Middle East indebted to Bush*
> By SALIM MANSUR
> 
> This week's journey of U.S. President George W. Bush to the Middle East -- the itinerary beginning with Israel includes visits to the Palestinian territories, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt -- is greatly significant and yet, in keeping with his temper, a low-keyed affair as the last remaining months of his presidency unfold.
> ...


----------



## Infanteer (14 Jan 2008)

A little early to make that call....


----------



## vonGarvin (14 Jan 2008)

I wouldn't say it's too early.  Mr. Mansur makes some good points.


> Regime change in Baghdad has brought a new Iraq to emerge with American support *despite the fanatical opposition* of the most backward tribal warriors of the Arab-Muslim world.


Now, I wouldn't go so far as to call Mr. Bush the greatest president the US has ever had, nor would I say that he has managed the war in Iraq well; however, look at the recent news out of Iraq.  Sunnis and Shias are joining the US against the "other" invaders: Al Qaeda in Iraq.  I guess they realise that the US may be the lesser of two evils (put pessimistically).  As well, the economy of Iraq would do much better off trading with the West vice with Al Qaeda.  (if you exclude Madrassas and bomb making factories)


----------



## geo (14 Jan 2008)

History written in the US:  George W Bush is a good christian and the president of Iran is a Islamic fundamentalist radical

History written in Iran:  President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a good muslim and the president of the USA is a christian fundamentalist radical.


----------



## Flip (14 Jan 2008)

Geo,

That's today's politically correct snapshot.

Give it a decade or a generation - I think long term history will
be more charitable than the current tide.

As a Canadian, I like George and I know most Canadians
misunderestimate him.


----------



## Bane (14 Jan 2008)

I don't know about 'history', but Americans tend to vote and respond, rightly so, to domestic issues.  The G.W. Whitehouse has been a disaster on the domestic side and there is not happy hyper-ideological principle to point to in his domestic governance.  As such, I expect that in the United States he will be remembered very poorly for a very long time.  If, as Salim Mansur says, the invasion of Iraq ushers in a period of democatization and modernization for the middle east *and* the U.S. is able to weather the serious fiscal challenges of the near to mid term, then perhaps his reputation will be better than it is today.  Which isn't saying much.  Mr. Mansur is also a self described neocon and has worked for a number of right-leaning institutions. It is also common for academics to bark loudly for attention from time to time....


----------



## Flip (14 Jan 2008)

> It is also common for academics to bark loudly for attention from time to time....



And that's whats going on now.  A new cycle of electioneering has started.
Thing won't be stable again for a long time.
As such, I wouldn't say much written in the short term is relevent in the long term.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Jan 2008)

Bane is perhaps proving my point, current attitudes are colouring the debate, who is to say what people will be saying or writing in 2020, 2075 or 2100. I can hope to see the 2111 centenary articles about the response to the 9/11 attacks, now *that* will be interesting.

President Lincoln was a lightning rod in his own lifetime, with various factions against his prosecuting the war at all, and others thinking he was not prosecuting it vigorously enough. Some Neo-Cons today would claim his expansion and centralization of government powers to prosecute the war was ultimately a bad thing, converting "*These* United States" into the singular Union ("*The* United States").

While FDR is often praised for his handling of the Great Depression and World War Two, dissenting opinions can be found against FDR, who modeled much of the "New Deal" after Fascist Italy and who's actions prolonged the Great Depression. Truman was pretty much despised by the end of his term, and his policy of global containment and "Give 'em hell Harry" style only became great accomplishments and memorable long after he left office.

Incidentally, _ad hominem_ attacks against academics and others do little to advance the argument, and my own dealings with Dr. Mansur are always cordial, regardless of how much we may agree or disagree on a topic.


----------



## tomahawk6 (15 Jan 2008)

Bush has been a pretty good wartime President.He got major tax cuts through the Congress which have helped the economy to this point. He was on the wrong side of illegal immigration. Domestic spending was too much like a democrat and may have cost him majorities in the House and Senate. Bottom line he will be judge by the success or failure in the war on terror. If some of you fault Bush for his faith, then you will be unnerved if Huckabee gets into office.


----------



## Bane (15 Jan 2008)

Thucydides, I think you're right about contemporary views shaping debates.  My main point was that over time Americans have emphasized the importance of domestic vs. international criteria for success.  But you are correct, 100 years from now, who knows. 
       As for attacks; I did call Mr. Mansur a neo-conservative, a term that he uses to describe himself...I can hardly be accused of attacking the man on the basis of this comment.  This is also important information to know for someone trying to assess the article.  One might say:  "Ah, this makes sense.  On the basis of poor current performance of these ideological principles that this group holds, I think this article is an attempt to alter the perspective on the end game status so as to package the current period as the 'hard time before the pay off'.  I think this gentleman is making this claim in the hopes that his ideological bent will not fall into as much disfavor as it would otherwise."  This is one possible conclusion to arrive at that one could not have arrived at prior to learning of the authors ideological bent.  If I am wrong about his right-leaning credentials, then I sincerely apologize. I have no desire to spread falsehoods about anyone at all. 
       On the issue of academics 'barking loudly'; the worst sin for an academic is irrelevancy, especially in political science.  This is a blanket statement on the discipline, not on Mr. Mansur.  If I went to Western I'm sure I'd have taken his class or classes and I'm sure we'd have gotten on fine.


----------



## vonGarvin (15 Jan 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> If some of you fault Bush for his faith, then you will be unnerved if Huckabee gets into office.


From my own perspective, I haven't really noticed him wearing his faith on his sleeve, as it were.  Not to a great extent, anyway.  I do, however, note that many of his more outspoken critics have "attacked" him for being Christian.  If I recall, there was at one point criticism of him via his brother, who is Roman Catholic (GW isn't).


----------



## Jammer (15 Jan 2008)

I think history might see GW as a President who was ahead of his time. By that I mean he really wasn't ready to tackle the problems of a country who has just seen eight years of a wildly popular Bill Clinton and an entrenchment of Democratic party ideals. There were great strides taken during those years to bring more of a social compact into the American psyche where the less affluent and minorities could see themselves getting ahead in life. Illegal Immigration was much less of an issue (still doesn't make it right), and there wasn't (according to CIA Intelligence Estimates), an overt threat to the US.
GW and his band took advantage of several International incidents during the Clinton years during his run for the White House to instill fear into the Republican hard cores which would naturally bleed into the Democrat rightists thus creating the conditions for a still questionable win in 2000.
GW was essentially adrift for eight months Domestically and Internationally until Sept 11th. from there on until today his senior advisors and Cabinet members have been in charge, and foreign policy became the focus. A Pax Americana by force if you will was the end state and legacy that GW aspired to.
 Don Rumsfeld retired (was removed)  because he had a temper tantrum, Colin Powell retired (was removed), because he had scruples. The VP and Condie Rice are really the brains behind the operation and now that there is no possibilty for a positive legacy (Jean Cretien style), the Middle East Peace Process is seen as a laudable goal for a lame duck Peasident in the twilight.

Just throwin' it out there


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Jan 2008)

I'm not really concerned how the world writes him up, or what he has or hasn't done. I just like the guy for some reason.


----------



## FascistLibertarian (15 Jan 2008)

What president has done more to damage American hard and soft power?
He has made tax cuts while increasing spending, the trade and bidget deficits are out of control.

I think he will be remembered as the worst US president post ww2 @ least.


----------



## Flip (15 Jan 2008)

FascistLibertarian said:
			
		

> What president has done more to damage American hard and soft power?
> He has made tax cuts while increasing spending, the trade and bidget deficits are out of control.
> 
> I think he will be remembered as the worst US president post ww2 @ least.



All of that is unfair nonsense. There are other forces at work that have influence other than one
particular president.  I think you are buying the Dems line.


----------



## time expired (15 Jan 2008)

FAC.LIB.Crap!!! The Democrat Presidents since WW2 have done more
damage to the US and the world than George Bush could have done
even if he served 2 more terms.Lets start with Harry S. Truman,he
was the one who unleashed the atomic bomb upon the world,moving
right along lets look at Kennedy authorised an unauthorised invasion of
Cuba which, as you may know, almost led to WW3.Then we have the 
biggest disaster the US has suffered as a President, Johnson, this man
through his indecisiveness and criminal incompetence was responsible
for the deaths of 82,000 Americans and untold numbers of Asians and
left the US in such a depressed state that it took a decade to recover 
from.I almost forgot the peanut farmer,Carter,his claim to fame is 
that he gutted the CIA,all in the interest of his rose coloured view
of world politics and his liberal agenda.He also taught the Iranians
that they could kick Uncle Sams a§$ with little fear of retribution.
  I will leave it at that and simply say that IMHO  George W. Bush could
be very well be judged as the President who recognised the threat and
single mindedly opposed it in spite of public and world opinion,and in
doing so made himself the most unpopular President ever.
                                Regards


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Jan 2008)

time expired said:
			
		

> FAC.LIB.Crap!!! The Democrat Presidents since WW2 have done more
> damage to the US and the world than George Bush could have done
> even if he served 2 more terms.Lets start with Harry S. Truman,he
> was the one who unleashed the atomic bomb upon the world,moving
> ...



With respect:

Harry Truman _inherited_ the atomic bomb on the eve of its first scheduled use. He had been kept completely "out of the loop" and he, Stimson and Marshall all confirm that first he ever heard of the thing was when Stimson bought him the "release" form to sign. Saying he "unleashed" the weapon is a bit much. Further, in my opinion, the bombings of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were completely justified and entirely moral; there is nothing inherently "wrong" with nuclear weapons - only with the causes for which they might be used next time.

Lydon B Johnson inherited the Vietnam war - from JFK who, in his turn, inherited a military training mission from Republican President Dwight Eisenhower. Kennedy expanded the war - against the best available _strategic_ advice.

Historians can begin to assess Bush and his accomplishments (or otherwise) in a fair manner in about 35 to 75 years - when more of the documentation is declassified.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (15 Jan 2008)

Jammer said:
			
		

> By that I mean he really wasn't ready to tackle the problems of a country who has just seen eight years of a wildly popular Bill Clinton and an entrenchment of Democratic party ideals.



Even in his re-election Clinton couldn't manage 50% of the popular vote!  He was only 'wildly popular' among the (predominantly Democratic) media, because he: (a) won; and, (b) was a Democrat.  His policies were generally pretty far to the Republican side of Democratic party ideals (which is probably why he won).



			
				FascistLibertarian said:
			
		

> What president has done more to damage American hard and soft power?


Carter



> I think he will be remembered as the worst US president post ww2 @ least.


 Post-WW2?  Carter, in a landslide ...



			
				time expired said:
			
		

> He also taught the Iranians
> that they could kick Uncle Sams a§$ with little fear of retribution.


 Which, along with a few other incidents (Beirut, Somalia, et.al.,) created [hijack] a belief in much of the world that America did not need to be defeated in war, but  rather just wounded, and it would withdraw: which led directly to 9/11 and subsequent events. [/hijack]


----------



## Flip (15 Jan 2008)

Hmmm,
No one yet has mentioned that Nixon was no peach either.

And of course Clinton's inability to deal with AQ at the outset.

GWB worst since WW2?

There's enough blame to go around.... ;D


----------



## time expired (16 Jan 2008)

FLIP,very interesting that you brought Tricky Dicky into the discusion,
President Nixon was a very good example of the superiority of
Republican presidency particularly in foreign affairs.Nixon's visit
to China went a long way to easing tensions in the area and he also
temporarily warmed the atmosphere in the Cold war by his engagement
with the Russian leadership. Incidentally there is some evidence coming
to light that Nixon ,due to his concentration on his foreign affairs,may 
not have known anything about Watergate and was therefore wrongfully
impeached.
E.R.Cambell,you may have noticed that I made no judgemental statement
about the use of the A bomb,IMO it was fully justified,I merely wanted
to bring to FAC.LIB.s,judging by his empty profile probably a student,
attention, that his left leaning view of history is based on misrepresentation
of the facts.You are of course correct in your observation that Johnson
inheretied the Vietnam engagement from his predecessors,however it
was Johnson who turned it into a fullblown war,and his missmanagement
that insured that it was lost.
                             Regards


----------



## KevinB (16 Jan 2008)

Well while dont think GW is incredible - he has done a good job with what he has, if anything loyalty to people like Chenney and Rummy is misplaced and hurt him, but he is in the chair -- and I'd rather have him that that idiot Clinton and his sexual misconduct and lying about it.


----------



## Infanteer (16 Jan 2008)

time expired said:
			
		

> FLIP,very interesting that you brought Tricky Dicky into the discusion,
> President Nixon was a very good example of the superiority of
> Republican presidency particularly in foreign affairs.Nixon's visit
> to China went a long way to easing tensions in the area and he also
> ...



Someone is a little high on Anne Coulter right now - considering that the split between Democrat and Republican is probably marginally less then Conservative and Liberal, I think your creating a bit of a false dichotomy here....


----------



## time expired (16 Jan 2008)

OK,INFANTEER,just set me straight,where did I go wrong.This was
a statement of the facts as I read them and as I live in Germany I am
not familiar with the lady you mentioned.So if you have any facts to
disprove my conclusions fear not trot them out and we can carry
on this discussion.By the way,what the hell is a" dichotomy" anyway?.
                                 Regards


----------



## RTaylor (16 Jan 2008)

Everyone has an opinion on GW...I have yet to really meet anyone who is on the line with him or doesn't have an opinion.

In my opinion (you knew it was coming) he's nothing but a puppet for his father's dreams (and other old warmongers and oil barons). I however DO believe that although he may have went about it the wrong way in the middle east at least he's getting things done, but on the home front things are sliding.

GW is a mixed bag really..most of the time he seems a bumbling fool, other times he seems like he's conspiring something and occaisionally he seems to do something right in the eyes of the public. Not the best president and not the worst, but certainly not one I would have voted for if I were an American.


----------



## DBA (16 Jan 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Harry Truman _inherited_ the atomic bomb on the eve of its first scheduled use. He had been kept completely "out of the loop" and he, Stimson and Marshall all confirm that first he ever heard of the thing was when Stimson bought him the "release" form to sign. Saying he "unleashed" the weapon is a bit much. Further, in my opinion, the bombings of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were completely justified and entirely moral; there is nothing inherently "wrong" with nuclear weapons - only with the causes for which they might be used next time.



Roosevelt died on April 12, Truman was briefed in detail Wednesday April 25th by Stimson and Groves about the Manhattan project. That leaves over three months before the use of the bombs on August 6th and 8th with a lot of significant events between like Victory in Europe (May 7 and May 8), Trinity test (July 16), and the Potsdam Conference (July 17 to August 2).

Reference: "The Making of the Atomic Bomb", by Richard Rhodes. Good book and with it's counterpart "Dark Sun" about the hydrogen bomb provide a wealth of information on the events both scientific and political surrounding both projects.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (16 Jan 2008)

Flip/time expired/Infanteer: by any reasonable standard, Nixon's foreign policy accomplishments (most notably perpetuating Sino/Soviet Conflict, and thereby saving the world from communism) far outweigh his domestic shortcomings (Watergate, wage & price controls, etc.); I'm not as certain that the 'Democrats vs. Republicans' split is as clear.  I was alluding to Carter's failing wrt AQ, but not stopping the rise of AQ (and Islamofascism (or whatever you want to call it)) can be attributed to several administrations (both Democratic and Republican).

As for GW; as far as I am concerned the jury's still out, but he's definitely had the right intentions and when we are able to look back, I'm sure history will view him far more favourably than his contemporaries, particularly in view of the increasing polarization of US politics (including the media).


----------



## 1feral1 (16 Jan 2008)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Well while dont think GW is incredible - he has done a good job with what he has, if anything loyalty to people like Chenney and Rummy is misplaced and hurt him, but he is in the chair -- and I'd rather have him that that idiot Clinton and his sexual misconduct and lying about it.



Agreed!

Bush has been alright, and I would have voted for him both times if I was an American. The troubles which became issues in the 90's in the middle east region was a mess he inherited from little or no action in the Clinton years.

He has handled things well, and many of the whingers are the limpwristed left Barac/Clinton lovers as far as I am concerned, and they'll do more damage than ever, should they get power to do so.

I will sum up and say, anyone who sits in the Whitehouse will always be critisised, but this war is different than the past ones, it is very dangerous for the future of us all, and we must be united against it. This war is much deeper than Iraq. Its about winning a war against a growing front of religious extremists worldwide, and now stopping rogue islamic regimes from obtaining atomic power. There is more at stake here than the bleeding left think.

Wes


----------



## Flip (17 Jan 2008)

> The troubles which became issues in the 90's in the middle east region was a mess he inherited from little or no action in the Clinton years.





> This war is much deeper than Iraq. Its about winning a war against a growing front of religious extremists worldwide, and now stopping rogue islamic regimes from obtaining atomic power. There is more at stake here than the bleeding left think.



True enough to needle point and hang on a wall - if only it were worded more......
anyway.......+1  ;D

Even though Canadians identify with democrat values more easily I just
thank God in heaven John Kerry didn't win the last election.
Would have been bad for America - Would have been worse for Canada.


Personally, I hope Hillary can learn from Bill's mistakes.( I'm an optimist )


----------



## GK .Dundas (17 Jan 2008)

Jammer said:
			
		

> I think history might see GW as a President who was ahead of his time. By that I mean he really wasn't ready to tackle the problems of a country who has just seen eight years of a wildly popular Bill Clinton and an entrenchment of Democratic party ideals. There were great strides taken during those years to bring more of a social compact into the American psyche where the less affluent and minorities could see themselves getting ahead in life. Illegal Immigration was much less of an issue (still doesn't make it right), and there wasn't (according to CIA Intelligence Estimates), an overt threat to the US.
> GW and his band took advantage of several International incidents during the Clinton years during his run for the White House to instill fear into the Republican hard cores which would naturally bleed into the Democrat rightists thus creating the conditions for a still questionable win in 2000.
> GW was essentially adrift for eight months Domestically and Internationally until Sept 11th. from there on until today his senior advisors and Cabinet members have been in charge, and foreign policy became the focus. A Pax Americana by force if you will was the end state and legacy that GW aspired to.
> Don Rumsfeld retired (was removed)  because he had a temper tantrum, Colin Powell retired (was removed), because he had scruples. The VP and Condie Rice are really the brains behind the operation and now that there is no possibilty for a positive legacy (Jean Cretien style), the Middle East Peace Process is seen as a laudable goal for a lame duck Peasident in the twilight.
> ...


 I say more like shoveling it but different horses for courses as they say. .......... how ever the phrase" positive legacy( Jean Chretien style)" still has me giggling aside from that fact the gentleman in question is gone how do you typify it as a positive legacy? Never mind let's not go there. 
 I suspect that 50 years from now GW Bush will be viewed perhaps in a different light. Sometime back a friend ( Yes I do have them!) once defined the low end of a successful presidency as at the very least having the same of number of states you started out with at the end of your term.


----------



## Pikache (17 Jan 2008)

Dubya will be remembered for the 'war on terror' and the extreme divide it has caused between the nations of the world. 

Whether he is right or wrong is too early to tell, but the climate of insecurity and fear brought on by his actions will make a lasting effect on the world.

I really have hard time trusting anything from US foreign policy


----------



## Jammer (17 Jan 2008)

GK .Dundas said:
			
		

> I say more like shoveling it but different horses for courses as they say. .......... how ever the phrase" positive legacy( Jean Chretien style)" still has me giggling aside from that fact the gentleman in question is gone how do you typify it as a positive legacy? Never mind let's not go there.
> I suspect that 50 years from now GW Bush will be viewed perhaps in a different light. Sometime back a friend ( Yes I do have them!) once defined the low end of a successful presidency as at the very least having the same of number of states you started out with at the end of your term.



The whole Jean Cretien remark was meant as a touch of sarcasm.
Your final remark is somewhat similar to the old aviators adage that " any landing you can walk away from is a good one".
Does it make it successful? We'll see in 50 yrs or so..


----------



## Colin Parkinson (17 Jan 2008)

The surge may have snatched victory from the jaws of defeat. That same victory was nearly squandered by a total lack of post war planning, Trying to fight a war on less than viable theory (Light, small, mobile warriors) the disbanding of the Iraq army and the Occupation administration of Paul Bremer. 

You can bet that the handling of the successful invasion will studied for years as it provides a great deal of lessons both in the logistical, flexible command and leadership roles and Geopolitical context. The occupation will be debated for many years as it will be a work in progress for the next decade, it has opened up many possibilities, with many dangers. The Middle East was a rotten apple cart, all Bush did really was to tip it over before it fell over. He has changed the status quo and that makes people very nervous. Many people will talk about Bush for a long time to come, few will remember his domestic opponents.


----------



## DBA (17 Jan 2008)

One line of thought is the surge worked in part because Al-Qaeda concentrated on winning the political battle in the west and treated the Iraqi population very poorly. In the Machiavellian sense they made the populace feel contempt instead of fear. A very advantageous situation in which to perform counter insurgency operations.

Like all complex situations it is not possible to know what the outcome would have been had a a few things been handled differently. I wish Iraq had gone better but I like that GW Bush hasn't given in to the fickle political environment and is seeing things through.


----------



## time expired (17 Jan 2008)

HIGHLANDFUSILIER,seems to me your mixing up cause with effect.
The actions of Islamic terrorists threw the Western world into fear
and disarray and woke some people to the rising threat.George
Ws. actions merely did not allow the West to go back to sleep
and for that he is resented strongly in some quarters.
                                             Regards


----------



## FascistLibertarian (18 Jan 2008)

Colin P, I wonder how many invasions and occupations George W Bush studied?
Honestly, the man is clearly in a bubble and the whole failed neo-con experiment reeks of groupthink.
How many times do you think George W Bush asked people to think outside the box, thing from AQ's point of view, try to think of reasons they may be wrong.
I bet not even once.

Yeah GWB had the best of intentions, hahahahahha, what president didnt have the best of intentions? They all did.
There’s no way Carter hurt the US soft and hard power more.
GWB has wrecked the view of America around the world, used the army for a purpose other than what it was designed to (and in doing so stretched it to the breaking point), and wasted billions of dollars.
What does he have to show for it. What valuable gains has he made for this very serious use of American money and more importantly lives?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (18 Jan 2008)

Did GWB pick the best set of advisers? I can comfortably say no, in fact Rummy was possibly the worst choice for the job. However look at the situation at the time.

US & UK were spending Billions of dollars to maintain the No-fly zones (to protect the Shias and Kurds)

US & UK were spending billions of dollars to maintain a field army in the region in an attempt to get Saddam to comply with the UNSC requirements

Hans Blixes reports continued to state that Saddam’s regime was being non-cooperative (read the reports)  and they had discovered illegal activity such as the building of long range offensive rockets. 

The UN was up to it’s neck in the Oil for food scandal

China, France and Russia were owed Billions and Billions of dollars for war equipment and Saddam was offering them access to his oil reserves as part payment, this would effective spelt the end of effective sanctions against the regime.

The sanctions were being used by Saddam to control his population and was having minimal effect on the regime and his supporters.

With the pending collapse of the sanctions, the US either had to invade or withdraw, a withdrawal would removed any real threat to Iraq and any need to pay attention to the UNSC and likely the inspection teams would have been kicked out immediately afterwards. Saddam would have been free to restart his programs, which would have been a priority to counter Iran’s determination to become a nuclear power. Within 5-10 years it is likely that Iraq and Iran would be teetering on the brink of new war, within 10-15 the possibility of a tactical nuke exchange between the 2 would be very likely. Neither country seemed to have any concerns about using WMD’s.

Saddam also had his successor in his sons who made their father look like the pope.   

So explain to me again how the above is a good thing?


----------



## Flip (18 Jan 2008)

Colin P.

To add your arguement I would point out that you have forgotten that Saddam was already being  rearmed Illegally.
Gas masks and protective gear was an early find during the war and the Russian Anti-JDAM system figured prominantlyin the news.

I don't see a rational choice for JWB othe rthan the one he made.
People love to forget that Saddam also had the option of retiring in peace - it was offered.

And yes Carter did hurt the US's reputation more - no doubt about it.
He proved unequivocly that America could be pushed around.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (18 Jan 2008)

FascistLibertarian said:
			
		

> Yeah GWB had the best of intentions, hahahahahha, what president didnt have the best of intentions? They all did.
> There’s no way Carter hurt the US soft and hard power more.
> GWB has wrecked the view of America around the world, used the army for a purpose other than what it was designed to (and in doing so stretched it to the breaking point), and wasted billions of dollars.
> What does he have to show for it. What valuable gains has he made for this very serious use of American money and more importantly lives?



Gimme a break (just one article from 1980):





> *West German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt once broke into tears in the presence of a friend, so distraught was he over his conviction that Carter did not grasp his true responsibility as leader of the U.S. The world drifts toward war, believes Schmidt, with Carter uncomprehending.* The same sentiment echoes from Asia, where *Singapore's Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew finds Carter's vision "a sorry admission of the limits of America's power.*" An official of Moscow's Institute of the U.S.A. and Canada complains: "What drives us crazy about Carter is his capriciousness, his constant changing of the points of reference in our relationship." *Following this summer's economic summit meeting in Venice, a participant observed: "Mr. Carter cannot merely keep declaring himself the leader of the free world; he must demonstrate that capacity."*
> 
> .... Yet *Carter is today a political cripple both at home and abroad* because the larger issues have swamped him. Inflation and interest rates have doubled in his time. The true anguish at home, as described by Patricia Harris, Secretary of Health and Human Services, is among members of the middle class, who are far from deprivation but find themselves losing ground economically. Their fear is directed at Carter. Overseas, *Soviet influence massed and grew and almost everywhere shoved a clumsy and reluctant U.S. against the wall. "We feel," says Raymond Aron, the distinguished French student of Realpolitik, "that American power is in decline. It is that simple and that unfortunate."* It is, for instance, one of Kissinger's views that Americans are beginning to reproach themselves and Carter because the U.S. did not take dramatic action to resolve the Iranian hostage crisis when it first occurred. The public wanted nothing done then, but now is blaming the President for failure to act against popular will. That may be another manifestation of what has gone wrong on Jimmy Carter's watch. In his own inexperience and uncertainty, *the President could not define a mission for his Government, a purpose for the country and the means of getting there. Former Secretary of the Treasury W. Michael Blumenthal confided to friends after he was fired that at first he thought Carter's long pauses during economic discussions were periods of thought. Later he decided they came from Carter's inability to decide what to do or even what questions to ask.*
> 
> ...


 http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,948928-1,00.html  It goes on and on (and on).

The difference is that whether you agree with what Bush has done and how he's gone about doing it (or not) America's enemies are beginning again to _fear _it's wrath: this is what hard power is.  The United States still has more soft power than any other country (hell, it probably has more of it than all other countries put together).  What do you think 'Jihad Rap' is other than a reaction (an attempt to capitalize) on American soft power?  Also kinda funny how France elected the most palpably pro-American candidate after Bush had already (supposedly) made America's name a stain on the world (or so the Moore-ons would have us believe).


----------



## 1feral1 (18 Jan 2008)

FascistLibertarian said:
			
		

> GWB has wrecked the view of America around the world, used the army for a purpose other than what it was designed to (and in doing so stretched it to the breaking point), and wasted billions of dollars.
> What does he have to show for it. What valuable gains has he made for this very serious use of American money and more importantly lives?



After growing up with 10 US presidents (1959 to present), for as long as I can remember, each president has had a international crisis. Don't forget, Viet Nam was the Democrats, not the Republicans, and although it did not prevent Communism from Viet Nam, it may have altered other rogue nations from entering such, fearing US intervention.

If the US did not get involved in Iraq and intervene, the world would be a more dangerous place than it is now. Sure we now know things were not as exactly pictured, but in time the regime would have been involved in something sinister for the west, and now the people in Iraq in time will have a chance. There is much more stability in many ways then before, and a lot of bad guys still wanting to have their cake and eat it too. It won't be easy for the NIA and new government for many years to come.

Strangly enough, when there is a natural disasater in these greasy shytehole places, these so called US haters are first to ask for $$$$, and the US usually complies.

Your above comment has really touched a nerve with me. The GWOT is much more deeper than Iraq, and I don't think thats been a waste. This is a war of cultures, that being a war fighting islamc extremist finaticals who love death as much as we love life. Its a long long way from being over.

I have earned my opinion from being there in the thick of it. Even 10 months later I hear of fellow Australian men and women I was there with, caving in to a host of mental injuries from what we all experienced. Some directly under my command, missing months of work upon return. It was NO middle eastern holiday. So, I have earned my opinion based on experience, not out of a left wing rag, or INet site, or others with the same anti US/ anti Bush thoughts. Just WTF do you know?

A waste of lives?? You are treading on thin ice. How disrespectful can you get! Those soldiers were killed FIGHTING (as you sit back and criticise their deaths with a Big Mac shoved half way down your throat!) They had more guts than you can ever dream of having. Trade in your Coke for a Zam-Zam if you are so anti American!

What is happening in Iraq and other regions, is securing a more safe environment for our future generations. Would you rather have us sit back and do nothing? Then when the SHTF, you and your ilk would be crying 'why did you not do anything'!

FL, talk is cheap. Opinions are one thing, but if you want to insult true warriors, and spout anti-American propaganda, perhaps its time to pack it in here and go elsewhere, where you comments can be digested with those of your same views. I find your words nausiating to say the least.

Considering from 11 Sep onwards, there has been many changes in our free part of the world. The US has acted accordingly, and coming 7 yrs later, the party has not even begun yet.

America view has not been wrecked. There has always been anti-Americanisms, the world is full of many, just waiting to get on the anti US bandwagon. The US has been critisised for numerous things over the years. They did not enter WW1 on the ground until July 1917, or WW2 until two yrs and three months after we went at it on our own. However without them the war may not have been won, especially in the Pacific Theatre.

Korea, Viet Nam, South and Central America, Panama, Somalia, FRY, A-Stan, Iraq, and whatever other places I have missed, or covert missions unknown, without the US, the free world, the west are in great danger form many who hate us (including Canada). The world would a different place without our American neighbours, and I mean different as much more dangerous to us all. 

Feel lucky you can have say what you wish, as in other countries right now, you would be in gaol being torturted, then disappear.

Thats a fact!

Can't wait to hear your opinion when Iran is next on the chopping block (and it will be).

As for me, I am not pro-Bush, nor pro American, but I stand on a side which I feel delivers, and has made the right decision, and has the BALLZ to carry things out where others would cower, and take heed to the snivel libertarian bleeding heart granola eating left. Refusal to admit there is a problem and sit back and do nothing is the worst thing that can be done. This buys the enemy time in training, funding, planning, coordination, and action.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (18 Jan 2008)

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> Don't forget, Viet Nam was the Democrats, not the Republicans, and although it did not prevent Communism from Viet Nam, it may have altered other rogue nations from entering such, fearing US intervention.



+1, but for further clarification:

WRT to the Communists in Vietnam, most 'historians' tend to gloss-over the fact that Nixon's aid package sustained Saigon to the point where South Vietnam became the fourth-largest fighting force in the world _after _the bulk of the US withdrawal.  The Communists only broke the peace accord _after _(the Democratic-controlled) Congress rescinded Nixon's aid package (and then were further emboldened by Ford failing to provide promised air support: no doubt another victory for the 'useful idiots').


----------



## Colin Parkinson (22 Jan 2008)

I seem to remember that our war stocks of 105mm Howizters were sold to SV, along with a bunch of spare parts. The differance between our C1 Howizters and the US ones was the muzzle swell and I remember seeing SV howitzers with the muzzle swell on the news.


----------



## FascistLibertarian (22 Jan 2008)

Im anti-Bush, not anti-US. Im right wing and generally pro-American. I do read some leftist stuff but thats because I try and read everything. People who only watch CNN are just as brainwashed as those who only watch Aljazeera.



> If the US did not get involved in Iraq and intervene, the world would be a more dangerous place than it is now.



I respectfully disagree



> The GWOT is much more deeper than Iraq, and I don't think thats been a waste.



Agreed, I support the A-Stan mission and a lot of the stuff about the global war on terror. There is a lot about how we conduct it that I disagree with, but thats not really the topic at hand.



> This is a war of cultures, that being a war fighting islamc extremist finaticals who love death as much as we love life.



Its also a war of hearts and minds, and I feel that George Bush's policys and the result of said policys have made it hard to win hearts and minds in the arab world.



> I have earned my opinion from being there in the thick of it.



I agree, and I have a lot of respect for you for what you have done, and I respect your opinion.



> A waste of lives?? How disrespectful can you get!



If you read my earlier post you will see I said a waste of money. So much money in Iraq has gone missing or been used for the wrong stuff. I am not at all trying to be disrespectful, I have a huge amount of respect for most of the soldiers, and none more so than those who gave their lives.



> Would you rather have us sit back and do nothing?



No, but I think war should be a last resort and in the case of Iraq I dont feel it was, I think GWB misjudged a lot of things. I agree that people always seem to want to intervene whereever there is a problem (Congo, Burma, Sudan, Somalia, Rwanda) and then when our boys start dying they wanna pull everyone out. Im not sure what can be done about this.



> Opinions are one thing, but if you want to insult true warriors perhaps its time to pack it in here and go elsewhere



How have I insulted anyone besides Bush and neo cons?



> especially in the Pacific Theatre.



I know, without them my great uncle would have died in a Japanese POW camp.



> The world would a different place without our American neighbours, and I mean different as much more dangerous to us all.



I agree. I dont think it makes me anti-American to dislike GWB and specific parts of us policy.



> Feel lucky you can have say what you wish



I am so lucky to live in Canada, I am thankful every day.

As to his domestic agenda 

America a net importer of oil and has a declining trend in agricultural trade balance. (these commodities will only get higher). 
Public and private debt are out of control. Savings is at an all time low. 
20% of all loans issued this year were subprime. The housing bubble has poped and is still going down. 
There is the problem of bank liquidity or inflation? Its a really tough call and either way its going to hurt. 
as well, how can you justify a 145 billion dollar tax cut/spending package in the middle of a 240 billion dollar deficit?

I know a lot of this isnt directly Bush's fault, but hes not doing anything about it, since he became president he hasnt done anything to address the economic disaster that the US is heading for.


----------



## Col.Steiner (30 Jan 2008)

Flip said:
			
		

> Geo,
> 
> That's today's politically correct snapshot.
> 
> ...



Yes that's it! We misunderstand him! Poor fellow, dumb Canadians!


----------



## Flip (30 Jan 2008)

Oberst 
American presidents are often reviled in their own time.
Especially by non-Americans.

Canadians by and large do not pay enough attention to support
their opinions with much more than feelings or impressions.
We very seldom calculate alternatives objectively.
A lot of Canadians think that John Kerry would have been good 
for Canada for example.

The word "misunderestimate" is a GWB quote.
I'll take the fact that you didn't get the joke as proof that YOU
have not been paying enough attention.


----------



## Col.Steiner (30 Jan 2008)

Flip said:
			
		

> Oberst
> American presidents are often reviled in their own time.
> Especially by non-Americans.
> 
> ...



Whoa, take it down a notch! I got your 'joke' and I wasn't trying to knock what you said so don't be so defensive.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 Jan 2008)

I find it interesting that people who are opposed to GWB invasion of Iraq, generally have no other well-thought out solution to problem that existed at the time and have never given it any thought at all. If people come back with a well thought out alternative, even which disagree with, at least I respect their opinion. Bashing Bush is cool for most people and the popular way to go. Disagree with them and see just how open minded people really are..


----------



## OkotoksRookie (30 Jan 2008)

That is a very interesting article. I've never heard that side of the argument but everywhere you go you hear the 'bush is (insert vulgar name calling)' Thanks for bringing that to light!


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 Jan 2008)

I always like pointing out this "Inconvenient Truth" to the Bushhaters


http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Jan 2008)

Just dropped in to say I still like George ;D


----------



## George Wallace (30 Jan 2008)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Just dropped in to say I still like George ;D



Why, thank you!.    ;D


----------



## 1feral1 (1 Feb 2008)

OberstSteiner said:
			
		

> Whoa, take it down a notch! I got your 'joke' and I wasn't trying to knock what you said so don't be so defensive.



So OS, are you critical of the Republicans?

Do you think we would be better to have Kerry/Gore or the Dems in the Whitehouse in post 9-11?

Bush inherited their (Dems) mess.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Feb 2008)

An analysis on why George W Bush inspired such passions, by the one and only Mark Steyn:

http://www.steynonline.com/content/blogcategory/13/99/



> *NICE IS EASY*
> Tuesday, 29 January 2008
> 
> HAPPY WARRIOR
> ...


----------



## FascistLibertarian (5 Feb 2008)

Well its mark steyn
I disagree with his points, but why should I counter it with words or logic? its not like that how things get done in our country!

Seeing as this is canada, I think I will try and have his speech considered to cause hate and contrempt towards those who dislike Bush!

 8)


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (5 Feb 2008)

> Do you remember the last time America was “united”? The fall of 2001. Ninety per cent approval for Bush. Massive majorities in favor of toppling the Taliban. Didn’t last, couldn’t last. Because six months go by, and suddenly Afghanistan doesn’t seem so easy, and 40 per cent bail on the president and decide it’s his fault. Unity on anything serious will, almost by definition, be shallow and ephemeral. President Bush learned that the hard way, when history reasserted itself and left its bloody calling card.
> 
> What we need is not bogus invocations of unity, which is largely a platitudinous or poll-driven cover for inertia. The President of the United States has to act in a world in which everyone from the bureaucracy to Congress to the EU to the UN is urging lethargy. In the days after 9/11, you’ll recall that Nato invoked its famous Article stating that an attack on one member was an attack on all, but even as the declaration was rolling off the photocopier various European foreign ministers were saying not to worry, it doesn’t mean anything. That’s “unity” – unity in the cause of torpor. George W Bush determined that for once somebody had to mean something, and he acted.
> 
> The next president will face that choice, too. By “change”, most voters want a restoration of the quiet life. Sorry, that’s not an option, no matter what nice young freshman Senators promise.



Say whatever you may about Bush, but it was he that took the fight on terror to the terrorists. If it were left up to the democrats, we would be seeing sequels like, WTC 2-3 and maybe 4 by now. He took the gloves of and said come on you cowards, you only get one free shot.

He may be a lot of things, but he was the only one that had the guts to stand up and fight and not allow these cowards a second chance. It's to bad the rest of the world doesn't see that. The MSM media paints him as a war monger, well they did the same thing to Roosevelt in WWII. According to them he was the devil incarnate and he must have lost his mind, but without his resolve, we'd all be flying a nazi flag today. 

History may paint Bush badly, but he was the only one that did what needed to be done and he made the hard choice, not the easy one. I think a few decades from now people will agree, that if he had just sat on his hands, it would of been a totally different world, and a much more bloody place.


----------



## Infanteer (5 Feb 2008)

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/70525.0.html

This will probably count for something....


----------



## mashup (6 Feb 2008)

I think you're being far too lenient.  Whether or not you believe that the invasion of Iraq was morally justified or not, the way in which GW Bush's case was presented and subsequently executed was extremely divisive to Americans and rooted in partisan politics at home that have crippled the US's ability to present a coherent response to what's happened in Iraq (cluster..).

The first and most important principle of war is Selection and Maintenance of the Aim.  The Iraq war was floated on a variety of premises which have all turned out to be flawed and were fundamentally deceptive -- manufactured intelligence, non-existent terrorist links, whatever, while at the same time denying the only sensible reasons to be there (oil and geopolitical influence).  The Republicans worked very hard to make it *their* war -- national consensus was not necessary and neither was national cooperation and mobilization.  The Iraq war's collary effect at home was to be to make the democrats irrelevant, while restricting the benefits -- defense contracts, reconstruction, etc. --  to the Republican party's ties in the military-industrial complex.  It could have happened, and it did work in that a lot of money has been redistributed in the right pockets, but the fact that the Bush administration put themselves out on a limb has left them with nobody to turn to for help when it all went FUBAR.

You can't blame Bush's administration for every problem the US is currently enduring, but the US entanglement in Iraq has removed the illusion of US superpower.  Bush's insistence on unilateralism and disdain for international cooperation has left the US isolated and diplomatically weak -- with the other two engines coughing up smoke (military and economic), the illusion of US hegemony has vanished, and we have a new international reality.  You can check out a very interesting article from the NYT here.

Waving Goodbye to Hegemony

I was living in the US during Sept 11th (next door to NORAD), and frankly I didn't find Bush's actions after 9/11 in any way courageous.  There's a reason Rudy Guiliani is seen as a hero, it's because the federal response to 9/11 resembled the federal response to Katrina -- nonexistent.  Part of your job as a leader is to be visible and reassure people you're taking care of business.  The Bush Administration vanished into thin air (or more precisely reinforced bunkers) for days, sporadic TV broadcasts notwithstanding.  Maybe this made sense in the context of the Cold War, Continuity of Ops and USSR government decapitation strategies, but I saw it as demonstration of their real priorities (confirmed by Bush and Cheney's service records).  I was shocked when Americans, instead of crucifying their government for putting their own survival above their people, decided to re-elect them.  Americans have very short memories, for which I fault for watching too much TV.

If Iraq turns out well, which I hope it does, credit should be given to the people who are making it happen, which is the US military.  It should not be given to Bush or the Democrats, who just spend their time trashing each other and oversimplifying everything.  As to Bush being likeable, he is (at least to some people).  But being one of the boys doesn't make him a good leader.  If you get into analyses that actually mean anything (think Stratfor) you'll find he's 1) mediocre, and 2) responsible for much, much less than the lower-wattage elements of the left continually try to pin on him.

Between genuises like Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh representing their respective political wings, I think the US has a better chance of stabilizing Iraq than electing anybody who's not useless.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Feb 2008)

More opinion:

http://www.rachelmarsden.com/columns/bushlegacy.htm



> *Hindsight Will Help Us See Through The Bush*
> 
> By:  Rachel Marsden
> 
> ...


----------



## Flip (11 Feb 2008)

Thucydides,



> George W. Bush is the Winston Churchill of our time. Don't see it? Keep an eye on that rear-view mirror.



A remarkable find! Especially considering the source.
I think this last remark might be going a little far, but still an amusing little piece!


----------



## Colin Parkinson (11 Feb 2008)

Mashup
You do realize that the Feds can not respond until the State govern er requests assistance? This is why FEMA was late in responding as the Governor dropped the ball on requesting help right away. Only the US Coastguard can respond without a direct request.


----------



## a_majoor (11 Feb 2008)

As I said at the beginning of this thread, there is too much emotional baggage and too much invested into particular points of view to fairly assess George W Bush now. 

Certainly his foreign policy draws the most attention, although there should be plenty to say about domestic policy under his Administration. Where you stand on issues is often determined by how they impact you, hence (for example) the widespread voter outrage over illegal immigration vs the rather (ahem) muted response by both the Administration, the Congress and the business elites.
Just the opposite seems to have happened with the attempt to reform Social Security, the voters who should have been outraged over the "Ponzi scheme" nature of US Social Security were mute while the various players who feed off vast sums of government money sluicing through the system fought against reform.

While the "progressives deplore US "unilateralism", they are notably silent on the failure of various multilateral initiatives (EU talks with Iran on Nuclear Enrichment, Six party talks on North Korea), while Neo-Cons are most vocal about these failures as the need to take unilateral action without referencing the rather extreme challenges of doing so.

Looking at other Presidents who held office in trying times (Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, and Ronald Reagan to name a few), they also were victims of rather vicious attacks by their political opponents at the time, but their reputations have altered with the passage of time and changing historiography.


----------



## muskrat89 (13 Feb 2008)

As someone who has lived here for 15 years or so - my biggest disappointment with Bush was the abandonment of conservative values. Most notable (in my mind) were fiscal responsibility and immigration. Illegal immigration is a mess beyond *anyone's* comprehension - unless they happen to live in one of the southern border states. I think he has indirectly created the situation that we find ourselves in now - with McCain (not a conservative, in my view) carrying the torch for the Republicans.

The phenomenon of the hatred with which the left views Bush is very curious to me. No right-leaning person that I am aware of - liked _anything_ that Clinton did; but they didn't spew the vitriol that Bush has endured...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (13 Feb 2008)

Hate is a religion all it's own.......



I think Bush hands were tied on immigration because of his need for the Hispanic vote. I would have though with his Texas experiences he would have had a better plan than presented, however US politics means selling a chunk of your soul to many people to get anything through congress. Likely what he wanted and what was presented is to different things.


----------



## muskrat89 (13 Feb 2008)

.. and it's a shame that illegal immigration has been turned into a "race" issue. I know well, am friends with, and have worked with - lots of Hispanics. The illegals bring "everyone's" wages down, and their mode of immigration is not fair to all of those who did it the "right" way - and there are lots. For most anti-illegal immigration people, it is not about race at all. Sadly, for most "pro" illegal immigration folks, it does indeed seem to be about race.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Feb 2008)

Just one of the many "unintended consequences" of modern Liberalism, "identity politics" and group rights.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (13 Feb 2008)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> .. and it's a shame that illegal immigration has been turned into a "race" issue. I know well, am friends with, and have worked with - lots of Hispanics. The illegals bring "everyone's" wages down, and their mode of immigration is not fair to all of those who did it the "right" way - and there are lots. For most anti-illegal immigration people, it is not about race at all. Sadly, for most "pro" illegal immigration folks, it does indeed seem to be about race.



Absolutely agree my Mexican friends in Seattle hate the lack of attention to both the legal and Illegal immigration issues. He has his green card and works legally, she sells real estates drives a brand new Range Rover, yet after 7yrs using a lawyer she still can't get a green card yet is pulling in a 6 figure wage. A functioning legal process to enter, a decent guest worker program and proper border controls would solve a lot of problems for everyone involved.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Feb 2008)

Follow the links as well:

http://kerplonka.blogspot.com/2008/02/two-things-about-george-w-bush.html



> Thursday, February 14, 2008
> Two Things About the George W. Bush Interview
> 
> The BBC interviews George W. Bush. Summary here, full text here. The two things that get me are
> ...


----------



## georgeharper (16 Feb 2008)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> The phenomenon of the hatred with which the left views Bush is very curious to me. No right-leaning person that I am aware of - liked _anything_ that Clinton did; but they didn't spew the vitriol that Bush has endured...



How could the right wing not like Clinton?
He also dropped bombs and killed civilians that it seems right wingers have no problem with.
Just look at it as colateral damage
Or use the disgusting term, friendly damage
But Clintons lies involved his use of a cigar.
Bush's lies have not only killed 4000 American soldiers and 78 Canadian, his lies have killed unknown amounts of Iraqis and mad the world a far more dangerage place than it was during Clinton's term


----------



## Flip (16 Feb 2008)

> his lies have killed unknown amounts of Iraqis and mad the world a far more dangerage place than it was during Clinton's term



How do you propose to demonstrate this?
I don't think you can.

The embassy bombing and the attack on the USS Cole happened on Clintons watch.
AQ and the plan for 9-11 emerged during Clinton's watch.

Seems to me there haven't been many succesful attacks on US interests lately.

Hmmmm

Do you know how many Iraqis would have died by Saddams hands.
Do you know how many Iraqis have died at the hands of a brother muslim?

I think you are wrong!


----------



## georgeharper (16 Feb 2008)

Flip said:
			
		

> How do you propose to demonstate this?
> I don't think you can.



Demonstrate  what?



> The embassy bombing and the attack on the USS Cole happened on Clintons watch.
> AQ and the plan for 9-11 happened on Clinton's watch.



Yea so.I dont think anyone told Clinton about those things.Do you?

Bush was practically given a phone call that 9/11 was coming.
Then he chose to read a book to children while people were burning and dieing



> Do you know how many Iraqis would have died by Saddams hands.



No.Do you?

But I have a good idea how many have died because of America occupying the country, and Bush inviting outsiders to come to Iraq to kill people.

BRING EM ON


----------



## Gimpy (16 Feb 2008)

georgeharper said:
			
		

> Bush was practically given a phone call that 9/11 was coming.
> Then he chose to read a book to children while people were burning and dieing



Haha, thats great, don't let Michael Moore's one sided talk get to you. He was called after the planes hit the towers and he decided to continue reading to children as to not alarm them. Maybe not the best decision all things considered, but it was an extremely tough time and an unexpected one at that.

All you're doing is trolling and I suggest that everyone who reads this tripe just move on and don't let these ignorant comments get under your skin.


----------



## muskrat89 (16 Feb 2008)

georgeharper - If you just came to this site to chant your mantra, move along. If you want to engage board members in debate, be prepared to substantiate your claims.

Army.ca Staff


----------



## eerickso (16 Feb 2008)

Bush is a sock puppet for big oil. The only thing we should be debating is wether or not he helped them knowingly.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Feb 2008)

mountainliving said:
			
		

> Bush is a sock puppet for big oil. The only thing we should be debating is wether or not he helped them knowingly.



A. Read the first pages and understand what this thread is about.

B. see Muskrat 89's post:



			
				muskrat89 said:
			
		

> georgeharper - If you just came to this site to chant your mantra, move along. If you want to engage board members in debate, be prepared to substantiate your claims.
> 
> Army.ca Staff


----------



## muskrat89 (16 Feb 2008)

> The only thing we should be debating is wether or not he helped them knowingly



The topic of this thread is Bush's place in history. If you want to debate anything else, start a new thread. Before you do that, re-read the conduct guidelines. If the smug, one-line, off hand comments continue, or you post information as factual without substantiation, you will be introduced to our warning system.

Army.ca Staff


----------



## eerickso (16 Feb 2008)

Greenspan:  “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,”


----------



## Gimpy (16 Feb 2008)

mountainliving said:
			
		

> Greenspan:  “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,”



If your only source is the *opinion* of an economist with no foreign policy experience then you're in over head. I guess it doesn't suit your agenda as well to tell us what his meaning was when he said "I was not saying that that's the administration's motive. I'm just saying that if somebody asked me, 'Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?' I would say it was essential".


----------



## eerickso (17 Feb 2008)

Yeah right just a regular economist. 
Of course he has no business talking about foriegn policy because foriegn policy has nothing to with economics.
I am sure that Goerge Bush is dreaming for Iraq to become a country like Norway. 
Oil prices will be very cheap then!!!


----------



## Nemo888 (17 Feb 2008)

He sure as hell wasn't as smart as his dad. The bitter irony is that after 8 years of on the job training he might actually have made a decent President if he had a third term.


----------



## TCBF (17 Feb 2008)

georgeharper said:
			
		

> How could the right wing not like Clinton?



- Well now, for starters, turning his attack dog of an Attorney General loose to sic the BATF on small town conservative America, resulting in the massacre of innocents at Ruby Ridge and Waco.  Just for starters.


----------



## Reccesoldier (17 Feb 2008)

georgeharper said:
			
		

> Bush was practically given a phone call that 9/11 was coming.
> Then he chose to read a book to children while people were burning and dieing



You're an idiot.  The phone call you are talking about was placed after the fist plane struck the WTC.  Sheesh, even Michael Moore has a firmer grip on fact than you do.


----------



## Loachman (17 Feb 2008)

georgeharper said:
			
		

> How could the right wing not like Clinton?
> He also dropped bombs and killed civilians that it seems right wingers have no problem with.



I am, in many ways, "right wing", and I certainly have problems with dropping bombs on and killing civilians. So has the vast majority of my counterparts in the US Armed Forces, which is why they take enormous pains to avoid such things. Precision weaponry has been developed over several decades to minimize both that and friendly casualties, and a lot of effort goes into both. Your statement is foolish and displays ignorance of reality.



			
				georgeharper said:
			
		

> Just look at it as colateral damage
> Or use the disgusting term, friendly damage



The terms have been mis-interpreted and misused in the press, and this has spread. For military operations, there is desireable damage (intentional) and undesireable damage (unintentional) that results from causing the former. Collateral damage is the unintended variety. It may be totally irrelevant from the operational point of view, and it may be detrimental to military operations (rubble in built-up areas limits movement). Under no circumstances, though, does anybody set out to render civilians homeless, or kill or injure them.



			
				georgeharper said:
			
		

> Bush's lies have not only killed 4000 American soldiers and 78 Canadian, his lies have killed unknown amounts of Iraqis and mad the world a far more dangerage place than it was during Clinton's term



And these would be which lies exactly?

Saddam Hussein and company have killed far more Iraqis than "Bush's lies", as have various other groups of thugs in Iraq.

None of those terrorists - or the Taliban in Afghanistan - however give a rat's behind for the civilians that they wilfully and intentionally slaughter. Mr Bush has never personally blown up a packed wedding, mosque, or market place, or ordered such to happen.

If any US president "mad (sic) the world a far more dangerage (sic) place" it was Clinton. Bin Laden would not have attacked the US had he not perceived America to be weak. Clinton had under-reacted to previous lesser attacks on US personnel and interests in various countries and Bin Laden believed that he could escalate and get away with it. I do not believe that he expected the reaction that he got, and he certainly would not have got the one that he did had Clinton still been in office. I doubt that he is enjoying his current standard of living one little bit, or the knowledge that he will come to an ignominious end somewhere, sometime. His glory days are long over.

Had Clinton or somebody like him still been in the White House, however, al Quaida would still be blowing things and people up in the US and elsewhere.

You need to get out more, or at least look at a wider variety of sources (preferably credible ones) than you do now, remove the blinders, and get past the biased and wildly inaccurate popular myths going around.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (17 Feb 2008)

mountainliving said:
			
		

> Yeah right just a regular economist.
> Of course he has no business talking about foriegn policy because foriegn policy has nothing to with economics.




Reality check:


> In the interview, he clarified that sentence in his 531-page book, saying that while *securing global oil supplies was "not the administration's motive,"* he had presented the White House with the case for why removing Hussein was important for the global economy.
> 
> "I was not saying that that's the administration's motive," Greenspan said in an interview Saturday, "I'm just saying that if somebody asked me, 'Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?' I would say it was essential."
> 
> He said that in his discussions with President Bush and Vice President Cheney, "I have never heard them basically say, 'We've got to protect the oil supplies of the world,' but that *would have been my motive*." Greenspan said that he made his economic argument to White House officials and that one lower-level official, whom he declined to identify, told him, "Well, unfortunately, we can't talk about oil." Asked if he had made his point to Cheney specifically, Greenspan said yes, then added, "I talked to everybody about that."


 (Emphasis mine)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601287_pf.html



> I am sure that Goerge Bush is dreaming for Iraq to become a country like Norway.
> Oil prices will be very cheap then!!!


 Huh?


----------



## Loachman (17 Feb 2008)

The skiing would be better, too.


----------



## eerickso (17 Feb 2008)

Aden_Gatling said:
			
		

> Huh?



My point is that oil prices are likely alot cheaper because Iraq is ruined. Lets face it, the country is ruined. Why? Because some lunatic scared a bunch of rich people! Greenspan thinks it is unfortunate that we cannot admit this. Well, I dont.

Honestly, I dont think my national security interests have any correlation with the price of oil. Oil should hire and pay for their own private army and quit screwing around with the governments.


----------



## Loachman (17 Feb 2008)

Iraq was in a bad way well before the US invasion. Most of it, today, is peaceful and free of the terror of Saddam Hussein.

Kuwait is far less likely to be re-invaded, and a brutal war with Iraq is far less likely to be re-fought, as well. A million people died in that last one by the way, and Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons (one of the so-called "weapons of mass destruction", a Soviet term, that Mr Bush supposedly "lied" about) against both Iranians and his own people is well documented. The number killed during the US invasion and subsequent factional infighting has yet to come anywhere close to that and the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed at his whim.

And as bad as he was, his sons and heirs would have been far worse had they lived and taken over.

While the terror of Saddam Hussein & Sons has given way to the terror of factional fighting in a small but violent portion of the country, there is hope for a better future whereas there previously was none.

Oil will be cheaper when Iraq has calmed down.

Your security and standard of living is far more closely tied to the price and availability of oil than you choose to realize.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (17 Feb 2008)

mountainliving said:
			
		

> My point is that oil prices are likely alot cheaper because Iraq is ruined. Lets face it, the country is ruined. Why? Because some lunatic scared a bunch of rich people!


 Oil is cheaper _because _Iraq is ruined?  Are you trying to say that Iraq was 'ruined' in the process of securing it's oil supply (which would at least be a coherent opinion)?



> Honestly, I dont think my national security interests have any correlation with the price of oil.


 Evidently, what _you think_ isn't what reality _is_.



> Oil should hire and pay for their own private army and quit screwing around with the governments.


 So Iraq should have been invaded by _the corporations_?

Funnily enough, they kind of do pay for it all, anyway: 





> just one corporation (Exxon Mobil) pays as much in taxes ($27 billion) annually as the entire bottom 50% of individual taxpayers, which is 65,000,000 people!


 http://seekingalpha.com/article/63131-exxon-s-2007-tax-bill-30-billion?source=side_bar_editors_picks


----------



## eerickso (17 Feb 2008)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Iraq was in a bad way well before the US invasion. Most of it, today, is peaceful and free of the terror of Saddam Hussein.



Brutal dictorship or sectarian violence? I vote for brutal dictorship after seeing endless media images of things that used to exist but no longer exist. I could provide links to examples for the next week.



			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> Oil will be cheaper when Iraq has calmed down.



Oil is cheaper as long as arabs continue to worry about killing themselves.




			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> Your security and standard of living is far more closely tied to the price and availability of oil than you choose to realize.



The Americans have nobody to blame but themselves. It's a sad state of affaires when your oil companies are leading/buying the way for innovations in energy alternatives. 

I dont think oil is any more special than coal or nuclear, but apparently people who buy cars think otherwise.


----------



## TCBF (17 Feb 2008)

mountainliving said:
			
		

> Brutal dictorship or sectarian violence? I vote for brutal dictorship after seeing endless media images of things that used to exist but no longer exist. I could provide links to examples for the next week.
> Oil is cheaper as long as arabs continue to worry about killing themselves.
> The Americans have nobody to blame but themselves. It's a sad state of affaires when your oil companies are leading/buying the way for innovations in energy alternatives.
> I dont think oil is any more special than coal or nuclear, but apparently people who buy cars think otherwise.



Where to start?
1. "Brutal dictatorship or sectarian violence?"  What would you prefer in Canada?
2. " ...when your oil companies ....  innovations in energy alternatives."  What?  Why shouldn't they be? Who should be if not them?
3. Oil/coal/nuclear: You must mean as a fuel, since you can't make IV bags, clothing, plastic medical devices etc. out of coal or U-238.  Even if my car ran on coal or a "Mr Fusion II", it would still need lube oil.


----------



## muskrat89 (17 Feb 2008)

mountainliving - If you just came to this site to chant your mantra, move along. If you want to engage board members in debate, be prepared to substantiate your claims.

The topic of this thread is Bush's place in history. If you want to debate anything else, start a new thread. Before you do that, re-read the conduct guidelines. If the smug, one-line, off hand comments continue, or you post information as factual without substantiation, you will be introduced to our warning system. The other people posting in this topic are taking the time into putting some thought into explaining their perspectives and/or citing references when posting "facts". Please have the same consideration.

Army.ca Staff


----------



## Loachman (17 Feb 2008)

mountainliving said:
			
		

> I dont think oil is any more special than coal or nuclear, but apparently people who buy cars think otherwise.



Do you like to eat? Listen to music? Watch movies at home or in theatre? Use a computer? Talk to friends on a telephone? Wear snazzy clothes, and warm ones in the winter? Do you like travelling further than barefoot walking distance from your home by any means, including public transportation? Do you enjoy any sports other than barefoot running? Do you prefer to drink anything other than rainwater or water from the pristinely clear stream running by your house? Would you rather live in that house/apartment than a crude cabin built from logs hand-cut from your personal forest? Do you ever use electricity? Do you ever use medications or visit a doctor, hospital, or dentist? Do you use condoms (I hope so, for the sake of humanity)?

As oil becomes scarce and prices rise as a result, you'll find yourself paying more and more for everything that you take for granted and can't live without. Some things you won't be able to do or get at any price. You'll quite likely lose your job, presuming that you even have one.

Most plastics are made from oil. Consider everything that you use that contains plastic, and imagine doing without it. Everything that you have got to the shop wherein you bought it via oil-fuelled transportation.

Our society, without adequate and economical oil supplies, would rapidly resemble those in desperately poor equatorial regions, the ones with fly-covered bloated-bellied starving children that you see in television charity ads - except much more miserable in the middle of a Canadian winter.

And idiots like you would have the hardest time comprehending why, and would whine the loudest.

Fortunately, you'd also be the least likely to survive.


----------



## 1feral1 (17 Feb 2008)

mountainliving said:
			
		

> Oil is cheaper as long as arabs continue to worry about killing themselves.



I really have to question some peoples brain capacity and train of thought.

Ya, another empty profile.

This quote is from one of the most stupidest  I have seen in a while, and really tells me that the o2 thief who conjoured it up does not have a clue about reality, and is just trolling, and seeking an audience.

At $95USD a bbl, petrol is about $1.30 a litre here, and I don't think thats cheap. You obviously don't drive.

The quality of your posts belongs in the toilet.

Maybe its time to move along.


----------



## 1feral1 (17 Feb 2008)

mountainliving said:
			
		

> My point is that oil prices are likely alot cheaper because Iraq is ruined. Lets face it, the country is ruined. Why? Because some lunatic scared a bunch of rich people! Greenspan thinks it is unfortunate that we cannot admit this. Well, I dont.
> 
> Honestly, I dont think my national security interests have any correlation with the price of oil. Oil should hire and pay for their own private army and quit screwing around with the governments.



Aside from listening to the selected media sources you want to hear, and read obvious tainted rags, and  anti establishment/anti goverment sources you seem to enjoy, a question. ever been to Iraq? 

I don't think its ruined, and its bettter off than it was. More good goes on there than bad, but I guess my 210 days spent there means nothing considering you are the SME on the topic.

Your posts are an embarrassment to the human race.


----------



## eerickso (18 Feb 2008)

Sorry for hijacking or/and trolling. I agree with the second poster, its too early to tell.


----------



## a_majoor (19 Feb 2008)

Now this comes from a *very* unexpected source:

http://video1.washingtontimes.com/fishwrap/2008/02/bob_geldof_in_rwanda.html



> *Bob Geldof in Rwanda gives Bush his props*
> 
> KIGALI, Rwanda — Bob Geldof has parachuted into the White House travel pool here in Rwanda, and will join us on the flight from Air Force One to Ghana tonight.
> 
> ...


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (19 Feb 2008)

> "You guys didn't pay attention," Geldof said to a group of reporters from all the major newspapers.


 Well that part is rather generous ...


----------



## OldSolduer (19 Feb 2008)

WOW....from Geldof?
Are you sure this isn't a stitch up from somewhere?


----------



## a_majoor (20 Feb 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> WOW....from Geldof?
> Are you sure this isn't a stitch up from somewhere?



No, like I said, a *very* unexpected source.

Now, some more rethinking on the George W Bush presidency:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120338469685475857.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries



> *Press Corps Quagmire*
> By WILLIAM MCGURN
> February 19, 2008; Page A19
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (22 Jun 2008)

More about what the future might hold (and look at the source!):

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/06/22/do2201.xml



> *History will say that we misunderestimated George W Bush*
> By Andrew Roberts
> Last Updated: 11:01pm BST 21/06/2008
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (27 Dec 2008)

The private George W Bush

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/22/bush-cheney-comforted-troops-privately/



> *EXCLUSIVE: Bush, Cheney comforted troops privately*
> Joseph Curl (Contact) and John Solomon (Contact)
> 
> EXCLUSIVE:
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (31 Dec 2008)

The President's reading is much broader and deeper than most people's (and as an avid reader myself, I'm impressed). Unfortunately his critics are "intellectually insulated":

http://www.randomjottings.net/archives/003699.html



> *Richard Cohen - the intellectually insulated man*
> 
> I'm a bit bugged by this piece by Richard Cohen - George W. Bush as an Avid Reader:
> 
> ...


.


----------



## JayJay144 (1 Jan 2009)

I'm not sure how many people would agree but I'm going to miss Bush. it's too bad they weren't able to change the laws for someone to serve more terms. His place in history. Terrorists attacked and he kicked some butt thats how I see it. half the states would have been mad at him if he hadn't. I don't know about you but I'm not a very big Obama fan. I can't see the Democrats saving the world like most of those who voted for them seem to think so. I see Obama failing miserably with the financial bomb that has been passed on to him.


----------



## xo31@711ret (1 Jan 2009)

I'm no GW Bush fan, but in a 'few' ( 10, 20, 30 etc, how many,  who knows) history may look on GW differently; especially after 911. As for Barak, well just my own opinion, if the times were different, ie semi-peaceful, he would be an exceptional president to lead the most powerful country. But with Iraq & the 'Stan, I believe, IMHO, that John Mc would have / should have been the clear choice. I only hope my I am wrong, and Barak makes an exceptional leader in these VERY troubled times for all...


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Jan 2009)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ is columnist Lawrence Martin’s ‘take’ on the Bush legacy vis à vis Canada:
--------------------
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090109.wcomartin12/BNStory/politics/home

 Bush's legacy cuts at the Can-Am core

LAWRENCE MARTIN

From Monday's Globe and Mail
January 12, 2009 at 12:00 AM EST

George W. Bush is already ranked by historians, pundits, scholars, scuba divers and bellhops as an appalling president. His any remaining narcissism has surely been obliterated, so no need to pile on. But in the continental context, there's his impact on Canada. How does he measure up in bilateral terms against other presidents?

The news isn't good. Mr. Bush may well go down as the worst president Canada ever knew. His chief bilateral legacy is something that cuts at the core of the relationship: his introduction of barriers at the border. Europe and Asia have been breaking down boundaries. But North America - as Michael Kergin, a former Canadian envoy to Washington, has pointed out - is "moving in a direction opposite to that of the rest of the world."

After 9/11, beefed-up border security was necessary. Seven years on, much less so. But instead of easing regulations over time, Mr. Bush's Department of Homeland Stupidity has been increasing them, bringing in passport requirements and other security measures. Canada's position was that we can trust one another. But Ottawa's initiatives to create a smart-border system with pre-clearance facilities and other measures critical to commerce have been largely rejected by Washington. The Bush White House has even had designs on introducing fingerprinting at the border.

Other presidents have had their moments when it came to Canada, but not as many as Mr. Bush.

Richard Nixon brought in a 10-per-cent import surcharge in 1971 but, bowing to pressure, gave Canada an exemption. He was reviled by many Canadians but tended to take a hands-off approach to this country, acknowledging that "we have very separate identities."

The Hoover administration brought in the 1930 Smoot-Hawley tariff, which cut deeply into cross-border trade. But Herbert Hoover was willing to work out a deal involving the St. Lawrence Seaway development that would result in Canada's getting a tariff exemption. Mackenzie King blew the opportunity.

Teddy Roosevelt took a bullying approach to Canada, threatening to send in troops to assert control in a dispute involving the Alaska boundary. Fortunately, he chose to ignore us most of the rest of the time. Grover Cleveland moved to embargo all trade with Canada in 1888; Congress thankfully turned back the move. Ulysses Grant and Rutherford Hayes had designs on the annexation of Canada but never followed through.

Canadian Conservatives won't forget John Kennedy's political interference in a row over continental defence with the Diefenbaker government. JFK adviser McGeorge Bundy admitted in a memo how the administration had "knocked over the Diefenbaker government by one incautious press release."

But Mr. Kennedy was generally admired by Canadians, while Mr. Bush is decidedly not. The list of reasons is long. He started with an oversight in declining, in his landmark post-9/11 speech, to acknowledge the help Canadians provided. His administration blatantly circumvented binding rulings of the free-trade agreement in the softwood lumber dispute. His slim regard for human-rights conventions extended to Canada in the cases of Maher Arar (rendition) and Omar Khadr (Guantanamo).

After launching the Iraq war on the basis of a supposition, Mr. Bush peevishly cancelled a state visit to Canada because Jean Chrétien had decided against joining in that war. As a result of Iraq, the Americans diverted major resources from the fight in Afghanistan, which meant that Canadian forces were left to an extended military mission in Kandahar. Mr. Bush infuriated Paul Martin by publicly pressing him, in a speech in Halifax, to join in Washington's missile defence program.

Mr. Bush's penchant for unilateralism led to his spurning of many collective agreements that Canada had worked for or supported, including NAFTA, the Geneva Conventions, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol, the International Criminal Court, the accord on land mines and more. The Bush administration has expanded the arms race most everywhere, including to outer space.

Then there's the matter of its economic management. The U.S.-led economic downturn that's spilling over into Canada is certainly not all of Mr. Bush's doing. But his administration's piling up of record debt and deficits and his enthusiasm for unbridled deregulation have been a major contributor.

With the new Obama administration, there are several issues, including protectionism, for Canadians to be concerned about. But with Mr. Bush's departure, there can only be cause for celebration. We'll soon have someone in the White House driven by reason rather than suspicion. With the reopening of the American mind should come the reopening of borders here and everywhere.
--------------------

No prize if you guessed, before reading a single word, that Martin would not be kind to Bush.

But Martin does remind us that modern history is replete with rocky Canada/US relations.

The real, big and valid complaint is about “Homeland Security” and the heavy-handed US approach to Canada/US border security. President Obama will visit Canada soon and he will ask for our support in the international arena. We ought to require some show of friendship and trust as a precondition for giving that support – revisiting some US border security practices might be the price he pays for our help.


----------



## GAP (12 Jan 2009)

I seem to recall similar Clinton bashing when he left office.....I don't think history will be that unkind to GW, nor do I think it will embrace his twityness. All in all, a poor communicator.


----------



## ArmyRick (12 Jan 2009)

here is my thought on this. 

He took over presidency and 9 months later his country was gravely attacked in the probably the worst ever terrorist act on the USA. How would any one of his critics handled it any different?

I for one do not buy the conspiracy theory either that 9/11 was an inside job.

He had a challenging preisdency and maybe made some good, not so good decisions. My point? It was far from easy to be president during those years.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (12 Jan 2009)

xo31@711ret said:
			
		

> I'm no GW Bush fan, but in a 'few' ( 10, 20, 30 etc, how many,  who knows) history may look on GW differently; especially after 911.



Agree with you. Its only with the passage of time that people will be able to look at his time in office with some objectivity. If you look back Ronald Reagan was also derided while in office. And if I remember correctly even Abe Lincoln had his many detractors, including those who hated him enough to kill him. If he hadn't been assassinated his legacy might have been quite different.


----------



## Rifleman62 (12 Jan 2009)

Lawrence Martin. 763 words including title, your name, date ,G & M etc. Your weeks work is almost done. Your mindset remains constant. Nothing new here. 

President Bush has made it his number one priority to keep Americans safe for which he has been successful. Keeping the US safe, Canada has been safe. Martin Lawrence finds fault with that. Of course he does. Nobody in the US of A cares about Martin Lawrence, or his opinions. That's because Martin Lawrence is a boring and predicable [size=10pt]*nobody*[/size].

Anyone who does not think that the US/Canadian border must be protected from infiltration of various elements/commodities is without brains.

"With the new Obama administration, there are several issues, including protectionism, for Canadians to be concerned about. But with Mr. Bush's departure, there can only be cause for celebration. We'll soon have someone in the White House driven by reason rather than suspicion. With the reopening of the American mind should come the reopening of borders here and everywhere."

Realizing that "reopening of borders" means more than the borders between US/Canada, Martin Lawrence do you really think President Obama will loosen up our borders?

George Bush is the two term leader of the richest, most powerful nation in the world. Lawrence Martin is the close minded columnist for the Globe and Mail.


----------



## Sythen (12 Jan 2009)

From that Lawrence Martin piece:



> After 9/11, beefed-up border security was necessary. Seven years on, much less so.



yea since the measures are working, let's scrap them! And if they get hit again, it will be people like Mr Martin asking why there were no safeguards in place..


----------



## 1feral1 (12 Jan 2009)

My views have always been right wing and Republican.

I enjoyed GW the past 8 yrs.

No adminstration is perfect, but considering what has gone on since 2001 alone, he has IMHO done a very well job.

I watched his last press conference today as I was getting ready for work, it was pumped in live on the TV.

As for BHO, time will tell, but I do not have much confidence, but I would imagine he will realise his attempts to be more 'left' may be more difficult then he seems.

Radical islam (and others) will see him as a weak and easy target, and use this to their advantage at every occasion. All those peace promises and negociations intended to be with Hamas etc will be flushed fast, long before they ever start. Many will still hate America and the west no matter what, and if he thinks he can change this, he's got a long row to hoe.

I view the Obama administration simply as a rehashed Clinton one, and with Hillary as 3IC, wish them luck! There is really nothing new here.

Farewell GW


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Jan 2009)

Well, Wes, here is another ‘review’ – this one a wee tiny bit kinder, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Ottawa Citizen_:
--------------------
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/ottawa/failed+president/1171129/story.html

A failed president
  
BY ANDREW COHEN, CITIZEN SPECIAL

JANUARY 13, 2009 5:05 AM

 In the final days of his presidency, it is time -- one last time -- to speak of George W. Bush. He will be gone shortly, and, like Richard Nixon, we won't have him to kick around anymore.

Soon Mr. Bush will be hanging drapes in his house in Dallas and planning his presidential library. He will be considering offers for speaking engagements, corporate directorships and his memoirs, as former presidents do.

But the departure of Mr. Bush is the most morose of any two-term president since a disheartened and incapacitated Woodrow Wilson in 1921. That's because no two-term president of the past century has left office with such low popularity and so little achievement.

Herbert Hoover left a mess, but the smirking Mr. Bush may have outdone even him. He leaves two wars, one getting better, the other getting worse. He leaves the worst economy since the Depression. He leaves a record debt and deficit. Worst of all, he leaves a legacy of incompetence and a climate of anxiety.

Mr. Bush did not create September 11, Hurricane Katrina or the recession, much as his detractors blame him. Americans expect their presidents to play many roles -- head of state, manager of prosperity, national leader -- but they are not authors of everything.

Still, Mr. Bush bears some responsibility for his three horsemen of misfortune. He failed to prevent September 11, he failed to respond to Hurricane Katrina and he failed both to forestall and contain the economic collapse.

Had he listened to his intelligence briefing in August, 2001, he might have thwarted the coming calamity. "You've covered your ass," were his dismissive words to the CIA when it warned him of an imminent terrorist attack. He then went into Afghanistan (wisely) and Iraq (unwisely), the latter with inadequate resources, without real planning, against sound advice.

When Katrina destroyed New Orleans, his administration was paralyzed. A senior official tells Vanity Fair (it offers a damning oral history of his stewardship) that the White House never recovered its credibility.

If he wasn't an intellectual or a visionary, Mr. Bush was supposed to be a manager. He had an MBA from Harvard, didn't he? He had run Texas, hadn't he?

Like Ronald Reagan, Mr. Bush could shed conservative orthodoxy on debt or big government when necessary. In 2001, he inherited a huge surplus generated by a "Goldilocks" economy that was so strong in 2000 Democrats talked of retiring the national debt by 2009.

Mr. Bush's catalogue of failures goes far beyond the economy, Hurricane Katrina or Iraq, which was wrong in execution more than conception. It includes promises to reform immigration and social security, where he tried and failed. Or, to introduce energy conservation and fight global warming, where he tried not at all.

All of this was as successful as creating that enduring Republican majority he'd imagined. That never happened, either; indeed, Mr. Bush leaves both the White House and Congress in the hands of Democrats.

Why was he such a failure? Fundamentally, George Bush was a self-confident soothsayer who knew little, cared little and asked little. He promised to be "a uniter" rather than divider as he divided red and blue America. He invited enemies to "bring it on" but never called his people to a higher purpose or to sacrifice.

This wasn't surprising. A visitor to Austin in 2000 would learn that Mr. Bush was untutored and incurious as governor of Texas, where, constitutionally, the office is a figurehead. He was known more for signing death warrants than legislation.

It is as simple as this: George W. Bush should never have been president. But for an accident of an antiquated electoral system, in a season of unprecedented peace and prosperity when the presidency didn't seem to matter, he never would have been.

He was neither temperamentally nor intellectually fit for the office. He arrived with the least impressive résumé (military, academic, political) of any president since the 19th century. He was content to delegate authority to Dick Cheney, who manipulated him brilliantly, the depths of which we are only now learning.

If you said this in 2000, you were denying his six years as governor, his Ivy League education, or his pedigree. We knew then that Mr. Bush was a reformed alcoholic, a failure in business (beyond baseball) and a laggard in school. He was also a folksy, leaden-tongued mediocrity.

At best, his administration was a missed opportunity. As author Thomas Friedman says, a national crisis of confidence like the Soviet launching of Sputnik sent America into space and then to the moon. September 11 sent America into stores and then into denial.

But it wasn't just a missed opportunity. It was worse than that.

The presidency of George W. Bush was a tragedy for his country, his world, himself and his unhappy place in history.

_Andrew Cohen is the author of Extraordinary Canadians: Lester B. Pearson. Email: andrewzcohen@yahoo.ca_

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen
--------------------

Historians, with the advantage of the “time that heals all wounds” will, indeed, find good things to say about Bush – just as Canadian historian Margaret Macmillan has done so much to remind us of Nixon’s good points. But, for now, I suspect, this is about as ‘kind’ as it will get in the ‘mainstream’ for George W Bush.


----------



## Rifleman62 (13 Jan 2009)

President Bush may be a failed president in most peoples eyes.  Cohen is focusing on three major events of his administration. There are other failures, but there has been successes. If Clinton had allowed Bin Laden to be taken out when the US had him in it's sights, President Bush would not even had that briefing of Aug 2001.

The title of the piece is "A failed president", therefore Cohen is writing to that theme. Would you expect otherwise? Cohen has the ability, unlike some simple minded columnist I have read, to write a balanced article eg "Bush, a failed president with several achievements".


----------



## Greymatters (13 Jan 2009)

History may also choose to exonerate him as a 'victim of circumstances'.  Some events, like Katrina, 9/11, and the economy, would have happened regardless of who was steering the ship...


----------



## OldSolduer (13 Jan 2009)

A Failed President?

How about a Failed US Congress, who let their power slip into the hands of the Presidents current and past?

There is MORE than enough blame to go around.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Jan 2009)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Ottawa Citizen_, finally, is an assessment of Bush that is flattering:
--------------------
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/op-ed/Dubya+dummy/1173270/story.html


 Dubya was no dummy

BY DAVID JONES , THE OTTAWA CITIZEN

JANUARY 13, 2009B
  
There are enduring caricatures for U.S. political partisans regarding presidents. For the Democrats, Republican presidents are numbskulls, barely able to walk and chew gum, let alone manage any cerebral activity at a university level. For Republicans, Democratic presidents are immoral, sexual reprobates with no female from ages eight to 80 immune from molestation.

And when a Republican “exception” appears (nobody could describe Richard Nixon as dumb), the individual is characterized as evil and immoral. For the Democrats, Jimmy Carter’s born-again Christianity was so profound that he chastised himself for having “lust in his heart,” and Republicans then depicted him as simply a silly naïf.

The problem for Democrats is that Republican depictions of the immorality of Democratic presidents are essentially correct. Whether it be FDR, JFK, LBJ, or (sigh) William Jefferson Clinton of the semen-stained dress , journalists and historians have found an extended string of extramarital activity that their partisans must either forgive, ignore, or depict as personal proclivities of interest only to narrow-minded Puritans. The question is whether their accuracy is 21st-century politically relevant. Still, there remains a segment of the electorate that hypothesizes an individual who commits adultery might well, to put it in the vernacular, have fewer inhibitions about screwing over the interests of the electorate.

Nevertheless, when most of the high-profile Republican candidates for president in 2008 (except Mitt Romney) had married and divorced at least once, often with blithe unconcern for the abandoned partner, one might begin to conclude that personal morality is seen as less connected to public morality. Or that in their search for a paladin, the Republican moralists are willing to swallow personal circumstances that earlier would have gagged a goat (such as Gov. Sarah Palin’s questionable parenting guidance in regard to her unwed teenage daughter/mother).

Thus, while the question of Senator Barack Obama’s personal morality was not an issue, Republicans may well find themselves in the blackened pot commenting on the colour of the kettle in a future election campaign.

Which brings us to the intelligence question.

Intelligence has become the be all and end all of modern life. And indeed, you can do more with intelligence than you can with stupidity. However, you do not have to adhere to the maxim of one conservative commentator, who preferred to be governed by the first 2,000 names in the Boston telephone directory than by the faculty of Harvard, to appreciate that pure intellect and practical politics do not necessarily equate. Was Albert Einstein more intelligent than FDR? Presumably, but how would he have fared as the U.S. leader in the Second World War (even aside from his constitutional ineligibility since he was not born a U.S. citizen)?

What political observers need to admit is that U.S. candidates for the presidency — and those who become president — are significantly more intelligent than the average adult. One does not lead a fractious military coalition as did General Dwight Eisenhower and be nothing more than a smiling grandfather figure. The compilation of Ronald Reagan’s diaries, private letters and early speeches largely published after his death demonstrate a thoughtful, insightful individual far beyond the caricature of a second-rate actor confined to cue cards for any speech longer than, “Good to meet you.”

And the most recent candidate for the dumb president label, George W. Bush, is anything but. One does not obtain a Yale degree in history and an MBA from Harvard without intelligence; he was the only major candidate in 2000 with an advanced degree.

Nor does one learn to fly high-performance jet aircraft with no more qualification than “jock” reflexes; the U.S. government doesn’t give dummies the chance to destroy multimillion-dollar aircraft.

To be sure, “Dubya” has presented an “everyman” persona as an “Aw shucks” good ol’ boy for public campaign consumption — and great electoral success. The Kennedy family is the repository of pretenders to American aristocracy; others need the equivalent of 19th-century log cabin upbringing — so Republicans have ranches on which they chop brush and show manly maleness by shooting unoffending birds and animals.

But separately and privately (in contrast to the self-indulgent announcements by Clinton of what he was reading), Bush has read seriously and deeply during his presidency. An end-of-year article by Karl Rove revealed that Bush in 2006, 2007 and 2008 read respectively 95, 51, and 40 books — primarily history and biography. And this in an era when only 30 per cent of over age 60 males read more than 10 books per year.

In short, excoriating Dubya for ghastly political decisions, e.g., invading Iraq, is legitimate criticism, but terming him stupid makes the commentator look dumb.

_David Jones, co-author of Uneasy Neighbo(u)rs: Canada, the USA and the Dynamics of State, Industry and Culture, is a former U.S. diplomat who served in Ottawa. He now lives in Arlington, Virginia._

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen
--------------------


I’m afraid Lawrence Martin, _et al_, would not agree.

Kudos to the _Citizen_ for bucking the Canadian trend and publishing something at least modestly favourable towards George W Bush.


----------



## Rifleman62 (14 Jan 2009)

Not only JFK, but both his brothers. I lost any respect I had, and never regained it for Ted Kennedy after he killed Mary Jo Kopechne in 1969 at Chapaquitic. He did virually nothing to save her let alone call for assistance in a timely manner.

Nothing wrong with liking women, as in FDR's case which was above the board. He did have an affair which Elenor discuvered. His daughter was Anna was a constant companion (unpaid personal assistance), even going to Yalta.

The guy who takes the cake (although not a president) former Democratic US presidential hopeful John Edwards who admitted that he had an extra-marital affair and that he lied about it during his campaign. There was a child, not proved it was his because the gal "refused" the tests.. His wife has terminal cancer.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Jan 2009)

President George W Bush bids the nation farewell:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2009/01/20090115-17.html



> *President Bush Makes Farewell Address to the Nation*
> East Room
> 
> 8:01 P.M. EST
> ...


----------



## time expired (16 Jan 2009)

That about sums it up.I for one am going miss you George.
                                          Regards


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Jan 2009)

Here is yet another _critique_ of the Bush presidency, this one, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is by Jeffrey Simpson:
-------------------------
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090116.wcosimp17/BNStory/specialComment/home

 Time will not do George W. Bush any favours

JEFFREY SIMPSON

From Saturday's Globe and Mail
January 16, 2009 at 10:19 PM EST

George W. Bush, despite his fondest wishes, isn't going to do a Truman.

In 1953, Harry Truman left office a desperately unpopular president. Today, he is viewed as having been a good president at worst and a very good one at best. The passage of time has been kind to the man thrust into the presidency on the death of Franklin Roosevelt.

The resurrection of Mr. Truman's reputation has inspired hope in unpopular politicians departing office that the perspective of time and the work of historians will change the verdict for future generations.

Invariably, their plea to history is that unpopularity flowed from having made hard decisions that time will make look better. As Mr. Bush said in his final speech, "You may not agree with some tough decisions I have made. But I hope you can agree that I was willing to make the tough decisions."

When tough decisions are bad ones, however, then both contemporaries and historians tend to draw the same conclusions. We expect politicians to make tough decisions, but we hope they will make correct decisions, which Mr. Bush did not.

Just as consequential as the hard bad decisions were a bunch of easy bad ones he made.

For example, he cut taxes on the wealthiest Americans, dropping the top marginal tax rate from 39.5 per cent to 35 per cent. He raised the estate tax ceiling to $3.5-million, with the result that the rich got richer. Those tax cuts helped to push the federal surplus he inherited from the Clinton administration into eight years in the red.

He expanded coverage for seniors' drug benefits without appropriating the money to pay for the expansion, thereby adding to the deficit. He did the same thing with education reform in the shape of the No Child Left Behind law: new requirements but not enough money to meet them. He went through eight years and barely used a presidential veto.

These, and many other decisions, were easy in the sense that they let spending rip without having to offend any constituency, let alone any Republican legislators who controlled Congress for most of the past eight years.

Mr. Bush leaves office with his country massively in debt, in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, facing years of huge deficits, with unemployment rising fast, banks and financial institutions tottering, a large trade deficit, an enormous oil deficit, and rising greenhouse-gas emissions.

In the parlance of American politics, the colour red is used for Republicans. It's a fitting colour for a Republican president who gave his country red ink everywhere, on corporate balance sheets, individual bank accounts, and local, state and national budgets.

He departs with the U.S. embroiled in two wars: one in Iraq that's finally going better, the other in Afghanistan that's getting worse. The "war on terror" has not struck the American heartland since 9/11, but terrorist attacks have struck many other parts of the world.

Mr. Bush dismisses charges that his country's reputation nosedived around the world on his watch. It did rise in India and parts of Africa; everywhere else, however, the U.S. is held in less regard today than when he took office, according to mountains of worldwide polling evidence.

Domestic evidence is equally overwhelming. Mr. Bush departs with an approval rating of about 20 per cent.

Mr. Truman's standing was down in the dumps when he left office. China had gone Communist, sparking cries of "Who lost China?" The Korean War was dragging on with no end in sight. Communism seemed on the march. The little man from Missouri seemed incapable of getting a grip on how to stop it. The Republicans had taken control of Congress, and they wanted less government and lower taxes, as always. Time for a change, they cried, after two decades of Democratic presidents.

Mr. Truman faded away to Missouri with his wife, Bess, to live a quiet life. In recent decades, courtesy of much historical review of the record, the end of the Cold War and the deceit of some of his successors, Mr. Truman's reputation glows as an honest, straightforward leader who made tough decisions, all right, many of them correct.

Mr. Bush has been working hard in recent months at improving his reputation, giving interviews and speeches defending his record. He will presumably keep at this work in retirement, hoping for a Trumanesque revival if not soon, then later, perhaps even much later.

Such a revival is rare. The record largely shows that a politician enters history more or less with the reputation he had on leaving office. Whether or not that reputation is deserved is almost beside the point.

You could argue, for example, that the reputations of Woodrow Wilson, Ronald Reagan and John Kennedy greatly exceed the actual merits of their records. The labours of critical historians have not dented the public's impressions that these were admirable presidents.

It is doubtful that historians could revive George Bush's reputation. Harry Truman he was not; Harry Truman he will not become.
-------------------------

Jeffrey Simpson has two major faults as an analyst:

1. He is a poor student of history; and

2. His thinking is so narrowly focused on Toronto’s _trees_ that he cannot see America’s (and the world’s) _forests_.

Neither this economic crisis nor Iraq will loom large with historians in a couple of generations. Other American presidents have presided over worse and have come away with reputations intact.

It is silly, even sophomoric to compare the problems faced by George W Bush with those faced by Harry Truman. Truman faced a foe bent, truly, on _*destroying* civilization_ as we understand it. _Al qaeda_ and the _Taliban_, by contrast, are flyspecks that America could wipe out in a thrice were it so inclined – which, thankfully, it is not.

The matters that I think will engage historians are the *big* issues surrounding the use and abuse of the Constitution: warrantless wiretaps, Guantanamo Bay, executive privilege and so on. These are, for American historians, especially, matters of great and enduring importance.

Another issue that will resonate, I believe, is Bush’s view of American _exceptionalism_ and the _unilateralist_ response it engendered.

On both issues, constitutional interpretation and exceptionalism, I suspect Bush will come out poorly when my great grandchildren read about him.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Jan 2009)

An Aussie respectfully disagrees with Mr. Simpson.

-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/01/what_went_right_for_bush.html

The Australian via Real Clear Politics.



What Went Right for Bush
By Greg Sheridan

THE final word on George W. Bush's foreign policy belongs, perhaps, to his successor, Barack Obama, who will be inaugurated as president of the US next week. In his most wide-ranging television interview on foreign policy, Obama was asked last week whether he stood by a remark he made in the southern Israeli town of Sderot, which has been constantly shelled by Hamas rockets from the Gaza Strip. Obama said that if his town, where his daughters slept each night, was constantly being attacked by rockets he would want to do something about it.

In the light of Israel's military campaign in Gaza, the TV interviewer asked if Obama still felt that way?

He replied: "That's a basic principle of any country: that they've got to protect their citizens."

 Obama was further asked to differentiate himself as strongly as possible from the Bush administration's policy of supporting Israel. Would he instead be ushering in a bold new policy?

Obama replied: "If you look not just at the Bush administration but what happened under the Clinton administration, you are seeing the general outlines of an approach."

Good grief! These words should shock every true Bush hater in the world. But wait, there's more.

Obama's nominee for secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, said that the Obama administration would put more emphasis on diplomacy and try to engage Syria and Iran in dialogue. (Just, indeed, as the Bush administration has tried to do.)

But, just like Bush, she and the new administration would not take the military option off the table in dealing with Iran.

On Hamas, she said: "You cannot negotiate with Hamas until it renounces violence, recognizes Israel and agrees to abide by past agreements. That is an absolute. That is my position and the president-elect's position." It is also one of the most contentious positions of President Bush, Democrat Obama's Republican predecessor.

Then there is the US prison in Guantanamo for terror suspects. Obama has pledged to shut it. Indeed, Bush wanted to shut it, too. But Obama's people now say that doing so might take a year or more, because, like Bush, Obama will face the dilemma of what to do with intractably dangerous people whose countries of origin either won't have them back under any circumstances or would be likely to torture or kill them if they did take them back.

It would be wrong to suggest there is no difference between Obama and Bush in foreign policy. But from the moment that Obama's hawkish, almost neo-conservative foreign policy essay appeared in the US journal Foreign Affairs in July 2007, it has been clear that the continuity in US foreign policy from Bush under Obama would vastly outweigh the change.

Indeed, Obama is the American Kevin Rudd, though, with no disrespect to our Prime Minister, Obama is more glamorous and better looking.

But, like Rudd, Obama is likely to engage in some powerful symbolic gestures while keeping much of his predecessor's policies in substance.

Obama is even keeping some of Bush's key personnel, most remarkably Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and some key Bush administration figures in the National Security Council.

Obama acknowledges the success of the Bush troop surge in Iraq and wants to imitate it in Afghanistan.

In truth, there is no greater compliment in political life than for a political opponent to adopt his predecessor's policies once he gains office.

All this is the opposite of the popular stereotype - parroted nowhere more faithfully than in the Australian media - of a bumbling, incompetent Bush producing a train wreck of a foreign policy requiring profound remedial action. So great is the emotional prejudice against Bush - on display again in a remarkably silly essay by Don Watson in the January issue of The Monthly magazine - that it is almost impossible to get a serious, rational, dispassionate discussion of the Bush foreign policy legacy.

But it is time to take serious stock of what Bush has meant for foreign policy. From an Australian perspective, it is necessary to distinguish different parts of the Bush time in office.

There is Bush's record on issues of special concern to Australia, such as Asia and trade policy, and Bush's incredible increase in aid for Africa. But there is the big question mark over the Middle East and the lack of action on global warming.

It is necessary to distinguish, too, between Bush before 9/11 from Bush after 9/11, also to distinguish the first George W. Bush term from the second, for they were very different.

None of these complexities normally figures in the celebratory denunciations of Bush constantly emanating from pundits and opinion panjandrums across the world.

One important reality check came from Walter Russell Mead, the Henry Kissinger fellow at the US Council for Foreign Relations, in a recent lecture to the Institute of Public Affairs in Melbourne.

Mead is in no sense a Bush partisan or neo-con. He is a non-partisan voice of great elegance and sophistication in US foreign policy. Speaking just after the terrorist attacks in Mumbai, and in the midst of the global financial crisis, He asserted that he was an optimist about the international scene. He advanced five reasons for his optimism.

One: Financial and banking crises are a regular and perhaps inevitable part of the capitalist system. But the US and the world always recovers from them and life goes on, generally with a better understanding of the way economies work and often, therefore, a better regulatory system.

Two: The failure of Osama bin Laden and his project throughout the Islamic world. This is most evident in Iraq. The Sunni Arabs there saw the US in a sense at its worst - given the abuses of Abu Ghraib and the mismanagement of the early part of the occupation - and al-Qa'ida potentially at its most appealing as the leader of resistance against Western domination. And yet in the Iraqi Sunni awakening, they rejected al-Qa'ida and chose partnership with the West.

Three: The rise of Asia. Mead rejects the intellectually constipated notion that China's rise equals America's decline. Instead he thinks that Asia is producing numerous big powers - China, Japan, India - that will naturally balance each other and always seek the involvement of the US as a further balancing and stabilising force.

Four: The enduring strength of American soft power. But how can this be? Surely Bush's global unpopularity has permanently ruined America's standing in the world? Not at all, Mead argues. One election, the triumph of Obama, and suddenly the world loves the US again.

European magazines recently at the center of anti-Americanism declare that we are all Americans now and that Obama is the president of the world.

But if anti-Americanism is so easily banished, was it really such a powerful force? Another possible explanation (and here I am not quoting Mead) is that much anti-Americanism is exported from the US itself and reflects not much more than the visceral hatred of Bush by The New York Times class.

The New York Times itself is reprinted all over the world and its attitudes and disdains aped by faux sophisticates from Brussels to Balmain.

Five: The enduring dynamism of US society. No candidate ran in the US presidential election in 2008 as the status quo candidate.

I find Mead's arguments pretty convincing. If there is even a glimmer of truth to them, they suggest that the world Bush created was not altogether and entirely as evil as contemporary reviews suggest.

From Australia's point of view, at any rate, the Bush presidency was overwhelmingly successful.

What are the core Australian national interests that Canberra would always want a US administration to protect? Surely three would be: a stable security order in the Asia Pacific; the integrity of the international trading system; and the health of the US-Australian alliance.

On all three, Bush was outstandingly good for Australia. Bush's success in Asia is simply undeniable, and Rudd, among many others, has often acknowledged it. Michael Green, the former Asia director at the NSC under Bush, has in several important articles collated opinion poll data about the US in Asia. It turns out that Asia is the one region in the world where the US's poll ratings are higher at the end of the Bush administration than they were at the beginning.

This was anything but inevitable. When Bush was first elected, the fear du jour of the international know-alls was that Washington and Beijing would find themselves in confrontation.

Then in April 2001 a US reconnaissance aircraft and a Chinese fighter jet collided and the US plane had to make an emergency landing on Hainan Island. The world held its breath. Here was the confrontation all had feared.

In fact, the Bush team handled the ensuing days of tension, while the Chinese temporarily held the American air crew hostage, with great sophistication, calm and restraint.

It was a sign of things to come. The US-China relationship has never been better managed than over the past eight years. China has grown wealthy as a result of the good relationship. At the same time, Washington's management of Taiwan has been masterful. It has maintained its security guarantee for Taiwan but consciously and effectively reined in its independence aspirations and managed downwards its independence vote.

The biggest success for the US was India, where it negotiated a new nuclear co-operation agreement that will help the transformation of Indian industry, and incidentally do more than almost any single act of government policy anywhere to counter greenhouse gas emissions. But most importantly it cements the new strategic partnership between Washington and New Delhi.

The US also reinvigorated its alliances with Japan and South Korea. Both contributed substantial troop contingents to Iraq. At Australian urging the Bush administration also revived its relationship with Indonesia. All of this is of the greatest possible benefit to Australia and is a powerfully positive framework for the Obama administration to inherit.

On trade, it is true that the Bush administration was unable to complete the Doha round of trade liberalization. But it never walked down the path of renewed tariff protectionism. It never played the protectionist card against China; will Obama be as good on this score? And it negotiated free-trade agreements with Australia, South Korea, Singapore and a slew of South American countries.

On the US-Australia alliance, the Howard government got everything it wanted from Washington, from profoundly important new intelligence-sharing arrangements to unrivalled technological access. These arrangements have been institutionalized and act as great force multipliers for Australia. The Rudd Government has sensibly consolidated them and they will be in place for the Obama administration.

Undoubtedly the hinge point of the Bush administration was the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Many of those who now oppose the military aspects of the US's response supported them at the time. Indeed, The New York Times's Maureen Dowd, admittedly the most air-headed of all significant North American columnists, once wrote of then US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld that he was sexy and charismatic.

Bush's mainstream opponents agreed with his decision to intervene in Afghanistan, and Obama is pledged to stay the distance there. Iraq remains the great divider of opinion.

This is no place to rehash all the Iraq arguments but what is absolutely clear is that everyone involved in Iraq policy, in every relevant nation, believed that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. They believed this partly because Saddam wanted them to, and partly because no other explanation of the facts made sense. But it is legitimate to criticize Bush for a wrong judgment on Iraq; it is not legitimate to say he lied his way into war, as Bush critics have to acknowledge that the WMD beliefs were nearly universally held.

The greatest and most justified criticism of Bush arises from the mismanagement of the early years of the Iraq occupation and the dreadful scandal of the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison. On the flipside, Bush gets all the credit for the subsequent troop surge, which was opposed by his key advisers and which has given Iraq a chance to emerge independent and semi-democratic.

The other great criticism of Bush is that he failed to wield the brilliant and powerful individuals of his national security team - Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Rich Armitage, Paul Wolfowitz, Condoleezza Rice - into a coherent team.

The second Bush administration was much less internally divided than the first and ran a consultative, cautious, centrist policy, concentrating on winning the wars it was involved in.

If you believe that global warming is the surpassing issue of the day, then Bush did not do enough to combat it, though it is clear the Kyoto Protocol was a flawed instrument for attacking this problem and there was never support for it in the US (remember Bill Clinton had recommended against its ratification).

Bush did neither significant harm nor significant good to the UN. That body's impotence and fatal moral confusion long predate him. But consider Africa. In his first term, Bush tripled US aid to sub-Saharan Africa. That's right, the US under Bush was giving three times more to Africa than it was under Clinton. And the increases kept coming during Bush's second term, so that if Obama continues the rate of increase, US aid will again be doubled by 2010.

Now how does that fit into the conspiracy theories about Bush? Was he pandering to the African-American vote? Was there a secret neo-con objective? Does Cheney have relatives there? Or could it be that Bush was trying to do some good?

It's too early to judge the Bush project in Iraq. But I am sure that, overall, history will judge Bush much more kindly than today's commentators do.

------------------------------------

I would note that Mr. Simpson was also a supporter of the Iraq project.

Unlike Maureen Dowd, who's change of direction on the "sexy and charismatic Donald Rumsfeld" lays her open to  male chauvinist suspicion as a "woman scorned", it is difficult to perceive the cause for Mr. Simpson's U-Turn.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (18 Jan 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> .........................................................................
> 
> -------------------------
> 
> ...



As I posted in another thread the warrantless searches debate is now a moot point: 

"In a major August 2008 decision released yesterday in redacted form, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, the FISA appellate panel, affirmed the government's Constitutional authority to collect national-security intelligence without judicial approval. The case was not made public before yesterday, and its details remain classified. An unnamed telecom company refused to comply with the National Security Agency's monitoring requests and claimed the program violated the Fourth Amendment's restrictions on search and seizure."

The rest of the article can be found here:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123206822799888351.html?mod=special_page_campaign2008_mostpop

The actual report can be found here if anyone is interested:

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/082102appeal.html


----------



## a_majoor (18 Jan 2009)

And two more people weigh in:

http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/ (Jan 18 2009)



> *OBAMA* SAYS Bush is a “Good Guy.” “I think personally he is a good man who loves his family and loves his country. And I think he made the best decisions that he could at times under some very difficult circumstances.” Once again, I agree with Barack Obama.
> 
> And so does the *Dalai Lama*! Though I, personally, wouldn’t go so far as to say that “I love President George W Bush.” But then, the Dalai Lama is a lot more spiritual and loving than me.


----------



## a_majoor (19 Jan 2009)

Reality vs mythology:

http://volokh.com/posts/1232335004.shtml



> *Bush is Indeed Like Herbert Hoover - But Not in the Way You Think:*
> 
> In the course of a New Republic article analogizing George W. Bush to Herbert Hoover, historian Alan Brinkley perpetuates the long-discredited myth that Hoover failed to stop the Great Depression because he pursued laissez-faire policies:
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (19 Jan 2009)

And further from CBC.ca:

http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/012551.html



> *The Bush legacies*
> 
> A somewhat surprising piece at CBC.ca:
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (21 Jan 2009)

From the DC Examiner:

http://www.dcexaminer.com/opinion/Bush_legacy_is_hidden_here_in_plain_sight_012109.html



> *Bush legacy is hidden here in plain sight*
> By Noemie Emery, Examiner Columnist
> - 1/21/09
> 
> ...


----------

