GWB and history

[akarunway 1]

I just couldn't resist this one. Liberal historians or the truth? Time will tell?>http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/politics/2008/04/11/the-first-draft-of-history-looks-a-bit-rough-on-bush.html So. All you hard core neo-con defend him to your death. Think these guys are wrong? Just curious.

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[Amazon 7]

Pretty much what I thought.

I just watched a documentary from PBS Frontline called Mr Bush's War... I would call that an indictment against him and his cronies. I would hope that provides enough evidence to prosecute them for their part in taking us to an unnecessary war that has killed so many and enriched so many of his friends and associates..

They told the American people what they were going to do with PNAC and the New American Century.. I guess all those who voted for the NEO CONS did not believe what they had written.. they actually believed Mr Bush when he said there would be no nation building.... contrary to what all hisw buddies were planning. I cant believe there are this many stupid people in America. I guess I really have lived on the coasts too long that I am that out of touch with RubeLand.

THANK GOD for that.

[SpeedRacer 1]

I think Bush at the beginning was not fully a Neo-con yet. His name is not on the PNAC website, and in his 2000 campaign he complained that the military was spread too thin, that there should be no nation building, etc.

Unfortunately his cabinet was mostly (not all) a cabal of Neo-Cons, who succeeded in turning him to the Dark Side.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[quade 4]

Right . . . at first just an affable dope, then dangerously stupid.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Unfortunately his cabinet was mostly (not all) a cabal of Neo-Cons, who succeeded in turning him to the Dark Side.

His cabinet was the greatest collection of yes men (and women) in White House history, so I'd question that they turned him into anything.

I suspect that history will treat him similar to Carter - the Democrats will lambast him for decades, the GOP will attempt to apologize for his failures, point to his strengths. Though I don't expect he'll do much in retirement, for better or worse, he'll be on permament vacation at the Crawford Ranch. Wonder how much less he'll make on the speaking circuit than Clinton.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

I just couldn't resist this one. Liberal historians or the truth? Time will tell?>http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/politics/2008/04/11/the-first-draft-of-history-looks-a-bit-rough-on-bush.html So. All you hard core neo-con defend him to your death. Think these guys are wrong? Just curious.

"Not only that, more than 61 percent of the historians say the current presidency is the worst in American history."

Yes, I disagree with the 61% cited there.

"It found that 98 percent of them believe that Bush's presidency has been a failure, while only about 2 percent see it as a success."

I’d like to understand how the polled professional historians came to their conclusions – what was their reasoning & thinking?
What was the criteria (or metrics) for determining failure?

Anyone have a link to more information?

It’s almost a truism that w/in human life times and recent history, we look back & imagine things better than they were. I suspect that history will be kinder to President Bush than current opinion & analyses. E.g., Presidents Lincoln and FD Roosevelt were despised by many during their administrations and now regarded as among the top 5 Presidents. (NB: It would be surprising to me if President Bush’s historical assessment mimicked Lincoln’s and FDR’s, but there are some that do argue now for that parallel.)

IMO, much of history’s view will be dependent on what is the situation 30y+ in Iraq. If it’s a thriving or even mediocre, non-failing state (& unlikely to be a US-style Republic with Maryland’s traffic codes, but neither Germany nor Japan exactly replicate the US), he will be regarded more kindly; if it’s a failing or failed state, he will not. That was the big risk he took.

Pessimistically, military history is likely to see this as one more time where a large state failed to follow-through on counter-insurgency strategy through transition and reconstruction.

Of course, one could argue, my crystal ball has as much fidelity as anyone elses.
VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I’d like to understand how the polled professional historians came to their conclusions – what was their reasoning & thinking?
What was the criteria (or metrics) for determining failure?

Anyone have a link to more information?

It’s almost a truism that w/in human life times and recent history, we look back & imagine things better than they were.

And conversely, view current bad times worse than they really were. Time can be kinder in both directions. Which is why no one that calls himself a historian could honestly rank the Bush Administration that has not yet ended.

Until a couple decades passes, it's political science, not history.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

And conversely, view current bad times worse than they really were. Time can be kinder in both directions. Which is why no one that calls himself a historian could honestly rank the Bush Administration that has not yet ended.

Yeah all too true.....the dumb fuck still has till DEC of this year.. to bomb Iran and get things really stirred up for his democratic replacement.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Presidents Lincoln and FD Roosevelt were despised by many during their administrations and now regarded as among the top 5 Presidents.

Thank you for bringing this up. Let's look at the similarities.

Entered in peacetime but went to war, putatively to protect the sanctity of the Republic. (Lincoln gets +1 for fighting citizens) Regarded as heroic presidents.

Flagrant violation of established constitutional protections (GWB - enemy combatants; FDR - non-enemy Japanese; Lincoln - suspended habeus corpus (+10 for Lincoln). Regarded as heroic presidents.

Bush's mistake was to be stupid enough to avoid Other than that, Bush is ranking far behind Lincoln and FDR in the despotism meter. Of course, if he were to, say, suspend posse comitatus, then he could, perhaps move to their equal.

My wife is hotter than your wife.