How will Dubya be viewed by future historians?
 

Before you start a narrative response, put him in the appropriate quartile.

I'd put him in the bottom quartile (big surprise, eh?). Between Iraq, irresponsible tax cuts, the Great Recession, and assaults on constitutional freedoms, he'll rank down there with Garfield, Polk, Buchanan and Wilson, I bet. Maybe worse.

I concur, Pat. He was a feckless, shortsighted boob of a CIC, and the most transparent puppet thus far of the bunch Eisenhower warned us about that still has this country by the throat.

Where will history rank him? If the steadfast tradition of revisionist history in our country is the arbiter, he will fare well. The rest of the world knows better, thankfully.

Careful fellas - Obama has continued many of his programs!

I'm not going to call it yet. So much has to do with how the ME looks in a few more years.

Pete

Depends on who you ask. I'm sure Conservapedia has him emitting farts that smell like Gardenia, and the father of all things wise and just.

I think he's a stooge.

Historians, on average, will probably view him as the POTUS version of the guy on "Idiot Abroad".

Make of that what you will.

Dave

At the near bottom.
Bush's administration in 50 years will be remembered for all those epic failures noted and maybe more for long term results. Mission accomplished. :p


It is not as bad as keeping the morons like Geitner that helped get us into this mess.



Carl

Agreed, no change, tax cuts, gitmo, patriot act, no regulation of derivatives, civilian casualties, what else can we 'etc'? ;)

So in many ways Bush and Obama share certain things... the left should be very careful what they wish for :cool:

Pete

lol.....

As a relatively decent and honest man who rose well above his capabilities.

I hated his Darth Cheney politics but never had animosity towards GWB as a human.

A middle of the pack President. Half the nation was already pissed off at him after the election. That, together with the dot com bubble bursting and 911, ended what could have been a good presidency. I would also place considerable blame on Clinton for our weakened intelligence agencies. Bush dealt effectively with an array of problems. Sure he didn't make all the best choices, but in a lot of cases, he did what was necessary. For all the vile hate that Obama supporters tossed at Bush, their savior, Obama, now seems to agree with quite a number of Bush policies.

Bottom quarter. One of the worst presidents the US has seen. Took the US in his presidency from world financial and military leader, to financial basket case, and a spent military power. Launched massive wars, none of which were successful. Sent the full force of the US government to catch one man and failed at it. Internationally, made the trust level of the US likely the lowest ever. Personally, he is going to go down as a laughing stock. Has there ever been a President with lesser oratorial skills?

His ties to the Saudis will be called into question.

Finally, I think his personal bravery will be called into question. At a time when the US people needed him, when the country was under attack, he sat and waited with a bunch of kindergarten kids.

bottom quarter for sure, misson accomplished was a joke! don't forget he was the decider! and what about that debacle when he was originally up for election when Jeb and that witch Katherine Harris handed him the presidency.

Middle of the pack. He was a pretty good political tactician, better than his opponents gave him credit for, as he routinely snookered them. He was to far to the left for my tastes with his domestic agenda, however.

Regarding the war - history will forget that Bush acted on the intelligence assessments that most of this contemporaries and predecessors knew to be "true", at least based on the intelligence he had. Maybe Saddam snookered him, maybe Saddam got the remains for his program out of the country before the invasion, maybe the program never existed. I suspect the truth is somewhere in between, but we may never find out what the truth really is on this one. The grand-standing on the carrier deck doesn't help the historical portrait, either.

Howzabout "believed to be true?" Even that may be a stretch (e.g., Downing St. memos).

If I was replacing somone who was hanging on a rope in a well after throwing themselves into it I'd not cut the rope either.

Iraq was contained regardless of any capabilities he did or did not have. Going to war was insane and only accomplished by lies. Ask sister Sarah, here is a women who ran for the vice presidency of out counry and she though Iraq attacked us on 911.

She thought that because George had tricked her and millions of Americans into believeing it.

This is serious stuff and the guy should be considered the worst president ever and be jailed.

This all depends on who writes history now does it not? Look at how Reagan is viewed by many now just to see my point.





Barney

Hopefully a serious Historian will be heard in years to come and not a bunch of whining partisan hacks (myself included) :D

Pete

As long as history shows the facts I agree. The facts are that Bush mislead his country so completely that even government officials did not know that Iraq had nothing to do with 911.

As long as history shows that Bush was a lying idiot? :p

Pete

As a patsy, a war criminal, a liar, a straw man,a drunkard. Blah, blah, blah.:p

As a cheerleader who forgot to put on underwear before doing they're routine is my opinion. Look to the House and Senate for the culpable if that's what you're looking for. Afterthought, include SCOTUS in the culpable.:p

Pretty accurate assessment, Pete! :)

So this is history?

Chas

Again, I don't think he's an evil sort: He just rose well beyond his level of competence.

[QUOTE=finnbow;93796]Before you start a narrative response, put him in the appropriate quartile.
QUOTE]

2nd from the bottom, I can't muster enough outrage to put him in the bottom quartile with the likes of Nixon or Reagan.

Amazing how Bush, who the left repeatedly deem an idiot, was able to supposedly hoodwink all the opposition into agreeing with him on invading Iraq. Who knew that WMD would not be found in Iraq? The real irony would be if they turn up in Syria. How good was our on the ground intelligence after the 8 years of Clinton?

Are you implying that Shrub was the smartest idiot in the room?

Not only have you just put it all in a nutshell, but you've also given me my laugh for the day.

Thanks,

Chas

Our "on the ground intelligence" has been pathetic for decades, particularly in the Mideast. Our satellite imagery and, to a lesser degree, signal intelligence have been excellent for a long time. However, we have limited ground assets in many parts of the world to provide context/meaning to the data.

Earlier in my career, I managed the construction of numerous high-tech government "spy-in-the-sky" facilities across Europe and the US. The technology was truly amazing for the time (early '80's), but the analysts/language experts with the responsibility for making sense of this signal intelligence were often bright mid-20's types with a couple of years at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, CA and another year or two of specialized training. I knew quite a few of them. I can attest to the fact that their German language skills (they analyzed signal intel from East Germany) were rudimentary at best. I can only imagine their Arabic is much worse, particularly with the number of dialects.

Here's a book recommendation if you're interested in the messy history of the CIA and its chronic incompetence.

I guess we all would've been better off if Eve hadn't nibbled on that fruit. :rolleyes:

Bush, Cheney, Rummy.

Our "on the ground intelligence" under Clinton was good enough to realize that we shouldn't invade Iraq.

I remember when Bush was running for president the first time my brother a Reagan worshiper said during the GOP primaries about Bush, "He has bankrupted ever business he's been involved with to date!" Guess you can add the Nation to the list now!




Barney

Yes, Hillary Clinton, so far out of the loop, she must've been an idiot when she voted for war.

BAM! LMAO!

Darn her to heck! ;)

Pete

IF Iraq becomes a responsible Middle Eastern nation that provides stability against Iran and becomes a bulwark against state-sponsored terrorism then he may be seen in a more favorable light as years go by. On domestic issues such as the economy he may be seen as just as bad as Calvin Coolidge, if not worse. His prosecution of two wars without paying for them and his lowering of the tax burden on the wealthy has created a huge deficit that was only made worse by the recession that followed. Actually as far as the economy goes he will never be seen as a positive force in American history....he may be worse than Calvin Coolidge.

I would not hold my breath on Iraq, al Malaki has come out in favour of Bashar al Assad and has pissed of all neighbour states with the sole exception of Iran.

Joe Biden was right, should have divided it into three states, Sunni, Kurd and Shia. Most of northern Iraq used to be a major chunk of Kurdistan anyway.

Oooooohhhh.....I like you. Hang around, get comfy.:D

Dave

lol........................no problem.....i think:D

None whatsoever! Oh neighbor to the south..:) Glad to see another rational clearheaded Californian even if you are from parts east. :D

So there are two of you now, huh? :)

rational and clearheaded? I do not know about that lol

Well one thing we know is that he does not like the name "Bush tax cuts" being applied to the Bush tax cuts he did back in 2001 and 2003....duh.