President Bush’s legacy
The debate over how history will judge George W. Bush
What will we say about him when he's gone?
(AP Photo/Ron Edmonds)
The left is ruthless in its criticism of President Bush, said Donald Lambro in Townhall.com, but history will look more kindly on his legacy. From Sept. 11, 2001, forward, Bush was a wartime leader. He "toppled two terrorist regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq" and "planted democracies in the middle of the world's worst terrorist breeding grounds." But before anything else people will remember him for keeping us "safe" from another attack.
Talk about revisionist history, said Eugene Robinson in The Washington Post. Bush and his fans love to brag that he has kept America safe—in an interview with ABC News' Charlie Gibson, Bush says he never backed off in what he called a "war against ideological thugs." But those thugs are still out there, "plotting new attacks," and the reason they've had time to rebuild is that Bush got distracted in Iraq.
That's not the half of it, said Matthew Yglesias in The American Prospect. Bush had the gall to tell Gibson that his "biggest regret" was that he got bad intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction—not that he misled the country into an unnecessary war that has killed more Americans than 9/11 and is costing us $100 billion a year. "That—not bad intelligence—is something to regret."
The Left will never agree with Bush's record in Iraq and in the war on terror, said Mona Charen in National Review Online. But an honest assessment of his legacy should consider all the good he has done—especially all the "time, energy, and money" he has devoted to fighting AIDS and other diseases in Africa. It's just "mean-spirited" to deny Bush credit for his role in a fight even liberals think is worth fighting.
You have to admit, said Joel Stein in the Los Angeles Times, there's a long list of reasons why Bush's approval ratings are lower than Richard Nixon's when he resigned—"the unnecessary wars, the curtailing of civil liberties, the economic collapse." If Bush wants to make us love him again, he'd better act fast. Otherwise, he's headed for the "trash heap of history."
Show: Oldest | Newest
15 Comments
Posted by Marcus, Friday, December 5, 2008, 1:38 pm Pr. Bush has a one way nonrefundable ticket to the trash heap of history. Even if we want to be generous and give him credit for some things, the magnitude of the failures he created or presided over dwafts any generosity we can bestow upon him in terms of success...
Posted by Diane, Friday, December 5, 2008, 3:07 pm My personal belief is that he ignored any evidence that there were no WMDs, then convinced himself that inspections weren't being allowed, thus giving himself a "rational" reason to start a war for whatever reason he wanted one. To me, it appears like alcoholic behaviour - denial, rationalization, etc. Anybody who is at all knowledgeable about alcoholism will agree that stopping the drinking is only the beginning, and the behaviour patterns will continue unless the alcoholic does more than put the plug in the jug.
Posted by APatt, Friday, December 5, 2008, 3:59 pm The sad thing is, is that any president, be he a democrat or a republican, that does all that Bush has done will be, in my book, a bad president. Presidents don't follow the Constitution anymore and act more like a czar than limited powers the constitution mandates he be. Oh, well. Since there is a huge bias towards the left in the media, we'll keep hearing how bad Bush was and now they will only say good things about Obama (even though they're very actions might not be that different). It's still an abuse of power.
Posted by Brett, Friday, December 5, 2008, 4:20 pm History will judge Bush as harshly as he deserves. Remember that history does not have any bias towards conservatives or the republican party, unlike "news" organizations such as Fox, The National Review Online, and The Wall Street Journal. I agree that it is as disingenuous to say that he has kept us safe since 9/11 as it would be to say that he kept us safe until 9/11. Look at the security assessments that have been made recently, 7 years after 9/11. Our ports are still woefully insecure, airports are still very insecure, and the influence of nations such as Iran has become dramatically extended. He may have done a few positive things, but he has done an immense multitude of bad things. He didn't get any bad intelligence about WMDs in Iraq; that is a complete lie. He wanted to go into Iraq before he even got into office and he was looking for any opportunity he could find, so he told his subordinates to go find him the evidence that he asked for so he could justify his intentions. When 9/11 happened, Bush and his team simply got to work on how they could turn that into a justification for invading Iraq. Everything that has happened in Iraq ever since was foretold by those who were willing to see it at the time. Bush has a fundamental misunderstanding of democratic values and principles, and as a result he has tried to change our entire way of life by making it commonplace for the president to violate human rights, both domestically and around the globe, and then try to cover it up with that claims of "national security", which is the same excuse used by the Soviets and other dictatorial regimes. He has embarrassed our nation and caused a huge loss of respect for the United States government because of his unilateralist views, which he has since abandoned out of necessity, and his childish cowboy diplomacy, which only seems to have impressed the base here at home while making the rest of us shake our heads in disgust. This isn't about "liberal" versus "conservative". This is about how someone honestly does in their official duties. If Obama or any other politician does as bad as Bush, I will be as honest about them as I am about Bush.
Posted by Michael J. Gorman, Friday, December 5, 2008, 5:37 pm George W. Bush was a draft avoider and an absentee soldier in the Alabama National Guard. He was a failed businessman whom Ronald Reagan couldn't find a job for and essentially called him a lazy idiot. Yet he was permitted to lead the greatest nation on earth down the path to death and disaster in Iraq, economic crisis and his constant efforts to dumb down America to his ignorant, frat-boy standard. He made many Americans, not just the left-wing fringe-Hollywood crowd, less than proud to say they are Americans. There is no chance for Bush to rehabilitate his reputation as Nixon tried to do (by being a thoughtful, smart ex-president) -- because there is nothing to build on. He can thank his lucky stars he is married to a fine lady, Laura Bush, or he would have suffered a far more devastating fate in the press than he has already. Bush should lay low and hope people just forget he was ever president -- really!
Posted by JERRY BORIS , Friday, December 5, 2008, 5:53 pm BUSH CHALLENGED AL QAEDA, AND SUCCESSFULLY IN IRAQ. THE CRITICS ARE FANATICS WHO SEEM TO THINK , AND GET THIS, "IN THE NAME OF PEACE AND LOVE" THAT IT OKAY TO IGNORE THE HUNDREDS OF 1000S MURDERED AND TORTURED BY SADDAM HUSSEIN. WHAT GOOD ARE THE LEFTY WEEPERS IF THEY IGNORE THIS MASS MURDERER'S KILLINGS OF SO MANY INNOCENTS? THE LEFT WANTS IT BOTH WAYS BUT NOT TO DO ANYTHING FOR THE AFFLICTED AND OPPRESSED. CALL IT WHAT YOU WILL, COSTLY,YES, BUT SADDAM IS DEAD AND IRAQ BREATHES A LITTLE EASIER. NOT THAT THE LEFT EVER DO ANYTHING FOR ANYONE ELSE, THEY JUST LAMENT THOSE WHO DO SOMETHING FOR THE AFFLICTED. AND EVEN BIN LADEN IS IN HIDING SINCE THEN, SEVEN YEARS AGO. THAT IS MORE THAN ALL THE LEFTY LIBERALS HAVE DONE ALL TOGETHER FOR ANYONE.
Posted by Seinfeld Karloff, Friday, December 5, 2008, 8:04 pm Actually, the Bushies allowed al Qaeda to thrive and increased their influence around the world through their complete mismanagement of the so-called War on Terror up to this point. It's true that Saddam was a bad dictator, but there are many other dictators and other "evildoers" out there who have killed as many if not more people than he did, yet we felt no reason to illegally invade them. Cheney/Bush's actions brought al Qaeda into Iraq and also allowed Iran to become much more influential in that part of the world. Until just recently, more Iraqis were dying during our occupation, admittedly by their own hand for the most part, than were dying under Saddam. Almost as bad, we were the ones doing the immoral torturing at Abu Ghraib after early 2003. Does that sound noble and worthwhile to you?
Posted by jer, Saturday, December 6, 2008, 10:26 am I voted for Bush 8 years ago (but not last time) because I thought he would unite the country, unite the world toward common causes, and bring some "Business" perspective to the president's office. And boy, was I wrong. If you want to measure the legacy of this president, ask someone outside the U.S. what they think.
Post a Comment