President George W Bush's place in history

[KevinB]

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]

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 

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

When the President moved into foreign policy there was a similar inability to view the entire world and calculate actions on a broad strategic canvas. A member of the National Security Council marveled at Carter conducting the discussions about manufacturing and deploying the neutron bomb. "It was out of a high school civics lesson," this man reported. "It was viewed in terms of sovereign countries, a bunch of equals deciding on a policy. It never seemed to occur to Carter that he was the leader and should make the decision in the free world's interest."

Visitors to the White House have wondered at Carter's literal acceptance of dovish letters from Leonid Brezhnev. The ruler of a critical Middle East country showed another statesman a handwritten note from the President that was viewed by the recipient as a near insult, a naive and flawed view of the forces at work among Arabs. During the months that the Panama Canal treaties were being discussed, Carter worried in his secret meetings about the fact that the U.S. had never admitted guilt in grabbing control in the Canal Zone and demanding absolute rule there. 

...

His civics-class approach to the world appeared again when the Shah of Iran fell. While cautious in public statements, Carter in private had nearly convinced himself that Iran would return to the constitution of 1906, that the legislature would reassemble, the military would hold order and a stable government take root. "It was preposterous," says one who helped plan the American response. "The President's thinking was not based on any actual experience of how governments really work in this world.
...
In almost every political arena that Carter has entered, his conviction that fervid good will would carry the day has proved false, and in many instances has worsened the problems. His belief that the Soviets would respond to dramatic overtures to scrap many of their nuclear missiles helped to fuel the continuation of arms competition. Carter's human rights campaign is now viewed as having often embarrassed U.S. allies and hardened the opposition of adversaries. His vague notion, preached mostly by his friend and onetime U.N. Ambassador Andrew Young, that the radical nations were our natural allies has been mocked in Viet Nam, Cambodia and Iran. "It is not that he does not mean well," says one thoughtful critic of Carter. "It is that almost everything he has touched he has made worse. He operated from the wrong concept of his job, the wrong theory of international affairs, and he uses administrative procedures that fail.""

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]

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]

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').