When future historians start to seriously consider the record of the immediate past President of the United States, George W. Bush, they will wonder at how a man so moderate in temperament could have attracted criticism so vicious.
They will certainly rate him above many of those who preceded him in the late Twentieth Century, well above Jimmy Carter, LBJ and Nixon and slightly above Gerald R. Ford, but well below the the Gipper. They will wonder why, in 2005, after his reelection with expanded majorities for his party in the House and Senate, he failed to push any significant conservative reforms while having promoted the need to mend Social Security and to deal with problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Though it can be argued that he can and did “push” reforms of those two Government-Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs).)
And they will wonder why he hesitated to shift strategy in Iraq in 2005 and 2006 when it would have been far easier for him to do so, both in terms of his own political capital and his party’s control of Congress than it was when he did change course in 2007 when he faced more of a challenge. The war had then become increasingly unpopular. The Iraq Study Group (led by former Secretary of State James A. Baker, III) proposed policy changes which were popular in our nation’s capital. The Democrats had taken control of Congress.
Yet, he ignored that group’s recommendations and undertook a bolder course, with little support even from his own party. And that course, the “surge,” succeeded.
Those historians will wonder why he waited so long when it would have been far easier for him to shift course immediately after his reelection or in the year or so immediately following.
It will be at least 50 years before we start seeing any objective hsitorical analysis of the Bush years. I doubt though that he’ll be rated higher than LBJ and maybe Nixon too (Watergate drags him down). I agree completely that he’ll be rated higher than Carter and Ford, especially the former.
they will wonder at how a man so moderate in temperament could have attracted criticism so vicious.
Yes, because we judge people based not on their actions, but on their perceived temperament. (eyeroll)
And they will wonder why he hesitated to shift strategy in Iraq in 2005 and 2006 when it would have been far easier for him to do so That’s a great question. An earlier shift to the Sunni Awakening strategy could have saved a lot of lives. Shame he didn’t seem to care until the war cost his party Congress.
Essentially, your post seems to be asking why he held a steady, recognized-as-bad course on a war for years and years until he finally changed course only after his party suffered electoral losses for it – and then managed to… slow the dying. Is your expectation that this will lead to a positive judgment?
Um, torrent, do you even read my posts? Sometimes I wonder. Seems you’d rather leap to conclusions than consider my post. And we do see that you, like so many on your side of the political aisle, still seethe with animosity for W. Maybe you need some kind of exorcism since you see him as some kind of devil.
I have no clue what the final judgment of history will be. Note how often I used the expression “I wonder” in the post. Now go look up the verb in the dictionary so you can understand what I was doing with the post.
#3 – Dan, what do you expect when this troll uses Vanity Fair as a resource for political discourse?
Yet another reason why his acronym TP is so appropriate – both are full of s–t and can be flushed rather easily.
Regards,
Peter H.
So asking you questions and reporting facts on the W presidency = seething with animosity. And I didn’t state that you would give him a positive grade – I asked if you or the historians would. Why so defensive? Let’s try something simpler: Do you disagree that Bush/Rumsfeld held to a losing strategy for years? You mention his hesitation to shift strategy in 05 or 06. Why would he have shifted strategy if it was working? Aren’t you admitting it wasn’t working? If so, how is that any different than what I posted?
Peter’s childish insults have (surprisingly!) failed to “destroy” one of his opponents again and are easily ignored; perhaps he’ll go back to the elementary school bathroom walls for more of the same (toilet humor is ever fashionable among that set, one assumes), but all I did was post the historical breakdown and some of the new information coming to light about how badly (again/more/^2) Bush and Rumsfeld mishandled the war. That’s not “leftist” opinion; as a summary it’s fairly common military judgment. I realize that reading books on the subject isn’t as rock solid a method as comparing initials to bathroom tissue, but that’s how we roll. It lacks the simplicity of, “I don’t like what those reporters said so I’ll make poopoo jokes about it,” but (again surprisingly!) reality doesn’t go away that easily.
Unfortunately, torrentprime, history also records that you and your Obama Party vehemently opposed the Awakening strategy and the surge, that you deliberately set out to sabotage the Iraq war by withholding money and attacking our troops as murderers and baby-killers, and now, as Nancy Pelosi has shown today, you and your party openly lie and rewrite history to make unfair attacks for political advantage.
I missed the part in the post where we were discussing Chairman Obumbler. Could you point out the segue please?
TP, you didn’t “report facts;” you spewed forth standard boilerplate dogma thinly dressed as claims of fact. And in case you haven’t noticed, the fatality rates in Iraq have dropped through the floor the last two years. So much for just “slowing the dying.”
I agree that Bush was pretty bone-headed for waiting until after he got his (political) head handed to him until introducing changes. On the other hand, all you can do is claim that’s just more “proof” that Bush was an idiot. If people like you would quit acting like these discussions were zero-sum games, and address the issues with some intellectual honesty, you’d probably get more respect in places like this.
GPW’s whole point was that it will most likely take a long time to honestly and dispassionately evaluate the previous administration’s performance; and believe you me (speaking as someone who voted for Bush twice), there’s enough to criticize. The difference between you and I is that I’m willing to admit to the mistakes of people I’ve voted for, and I don’t mindlessly beat up on every single Democrat who comes down the pike.
You, on the other hand, are similar to a very large number of liberal/Democrats who are quite comfortable whinging about the mote in their neighbor’s eye, while ignoring the beam in their own.
torrent, my tone reflects you constant criticism of anything I write. I have no clue if history will excuse W for his delay; right now, I think it should render a pretty harsh judgment, but balancing that judgment with praise, just as the author of the book you linked highlighted the success of the “surge” in his sequel which you failed to mention.
Maybe, as time passes, and as Administration and military officials speak out, we’ll learn that there were reasons for staying with the 2005-06 course.
And please, you are seething with contempt, why do you dismiss what a normal person would call success as “slow the dying.”
Let me repeat the point of the post. I look back at how steadfast W was about the surge demonstrated his ability to lead in times of crisis in an unfavorable political environment and wonder why he didn’t show such leadership earlier. It’s an interesting question. And maybe the election loss did have something to do with it (but I’ve read stuff suggesting that the decision to fire Rumsfeld was in the works for some time).
I would be utterly floored if torrentroll has ever even cracked a history book, let alone read one. His opinion on history’s judgment is worth even less than the distortions, delusions and lies he considers “facts”. Why do we even pay attention to him? Rosie O’Donnell is more rational and considered.
As for Bush, he will be rated far above Carter and Nixon and probably above his father and the execrable Mr. Clinton.
The first thing you have to remember is that the truth will out regarding the economy — particularly since Democrats are now repeating the type of policies that caused the housing and financial crises throughout the economy. The facts are all there for everyone to see, and less hysterical observers will see that Bush (and Republicans) indeed tried many times to put reforms in place that would have prevented the crisis, but that corrupt Democrats blocked them at every turn. Bush had 56 months of uninterupted economic growth, pulled us quickly out of the dot.com recession, deftly avoided a second recession after the heart of the nations economic and military centers were attacked on 9/11 and his only responsibility for the current economic crisis rests in being unable to overcome Democrat filibusters of Fannie and Freddy reform.
James Taranto, a learned student of presidential history said near the beginning of Bush’s first term, long before anyone was thinking about rating his presidency, that history does not hold against presidents what they attempted and failed to do, but rather what they never did to begin with.
Bush (and Cheney) were bold and visionary in regard to the war on terror. Despite the left’s ignorant hysterics and ceaseless “gotcha”-style monday morning quarterbacking, the war had FAR less loss of life and FAR fewer mistakes than any comparable war in our nation’s history.
And whats more, it worked. A rogue tyrant that no responsible president could have left in power was deposed in record shattering time, and contrary to liberal insistence that brown-skinned people dont want freedom or democracy, Iraq is more stable and safe than many Democrat precincts here in the United States.
And lastly, among all wartime presidents, (again, despite the hysterical ignorant rantings of the left) President Bush by FAR safeguarded civil liberties more than any other. (Look at how the left STILL wets their pants over the man who marched Japanese Americans off to internment camps!)
For his accomplishments and vision, Bush will be rated high average at the least. If Democracy in Iraq spreads throughout the region, he will be remembered as near-great.
Well, I was going to respond to TP about how my comments are “easily ignored” by everyone except himself, obviously revealing his hypocritical thinking, but since everyone else piled on him I will mercifully pass on adding fuel to the fire.
Suffice to say that once again, TP has been outclassed.
Poor troll. It must suck to be him.
Regards,
Peter H.
I think it will tell fairly soon. Seems that Mr. Bush’s greatest desire, post presidency, is to become the highest paid ex-president speaker in history. I await to see if this prediction comes true (eyes rolling). Probably rated higher than Clinton? That deserves a laugh and an eye roll.
Supporters thought Nixon’s history would supersede Watergate and he would be remembered for his other achievements. Well, in 35 years, he hasn’t; in fact we’ve only learned more about him as a petty politician who would clearly do or say anything (Checker’s speech, Pat’s coat, etc) to attain his goals. I’m guessing Bush will eventually grab Nixon’s top spot as the worst, twice-elected president in history.
Iraq will be the keystone (or, for a biblical reference, the “millstone”) for the GWB legacy. If Iraq successfully becomes an economically successful, pluralistic (although heavily islamic-leaning) democracy that provides a compelling alternative to the typical theocracies and despotic monarchies of the region, then Bush will be acclaimed as a courageous visionary. If not, the whole enterprise will taint his legacy.
Although fraught with tactical blunders, the Iraq conflict was an ideological work of courage and conviction. Bush went into the conflict with the firm belief that freedom and liberty are not merely European or Western Civilization values, but ultimately universal human values. He foresaw a future in the Middle East that did not damn its population to perpetual despotism. The US-Iraq war was founded in this optimism, as much as any war can be, with the best of intentions for the people of the nation in the center of the conflict.
Domestically, however, at least to conservatives, the Bush presidency was a disappointment. Although a staunch social conservative, he was a “big govmint” Republican who expanded rather than truncated the size and scope of the federal government. NCLB and prescription drug benefit expansion immediately come to mind.
Not the most articulate President, to be sure. But a strong leader with conviction, and, if Iraq continues to improve, a forward thinking political visionary. That’s how history will judge him, and it is still to soon to tell how Iraq will ultimately break for him. I hope for the best, for the sake of the citizens of Iraq and the entire Arab world.
I am not a fan, but George W. Bush will go down in history as the most diplomatic world leader anyone has seen in the last 50 years. Even his most ardent critics have to admit that. Obama hasn’t even demonstrated half as much reserve especially when facing his critics. But then again, the Right has always shown more reserve than the Left. Perhaps that’s the Right’s own downfall.
When future historians start to seriously consider the record of the immediate past President of the United States, George W. Bush, they will wonder at how a man so moderate in temperament could have attracted criticism so vicious.
I teach History at a local community college…as a liberal even I am still wondering why W caught a lot of flack. I’ll admit I was pissed that we got involved in Iraq (only b/c I wanted to find OBL first, then gloves off to Mr. Saddam) but stopped when a good chunk of the Democrats gave W the thumbs up to go in…I thought they knew what they were doing. Oops… they were like adolescents; me too-ism for when it was popular and running away when it wasn’t
Unless the “historian” can balance out some of the good things he’s done, some of the moderate attempts (NCLB w/Ted K, Medicare Part D) take their criticism with a grain of salt. Trust me, a lot of historians are Euro-happy leftists who think Europe, esp. the Nordic states, are heaven on earth. Those who teach American history may be a bit more moderate, but not much.
voted Gore in ’00, Green in’04, wrote in in ’08
It is still to early to assess W´s presidency. How history will judge him will be depend on the ideology of the historian. (So much revisionism that facts are discarded or twisted to the agenda of the historian.) If Nixon can only be judged of in terms of Watergate then students of history are in trouble. He is remembered as the President who made the SBA accessible to black entrepreneurs, in fulfillment to his black capitalism plank in his 1968 platform. As he said, ¨black do not want a handout, they want a hand up.¨ China´s place in the world today can be attributed to his China policy. As for Watergate, I think it pales in light of the crap that we see in Washington these days.
#12 – “Seems that Mr. Bush’s greatest desire, post presidency, is to become the highest paid ex-president speaker in history.”
Really, liberal Kevin? Cite proof please, otherwise you are dismissed.
Regards,
Peter H.