The most revealing aspect of Bush’s attitude to the presidency was his statement while the invasion of Iraq was underway: “I am a war President.” This coming from a man who dodged Vietnam.
As Commander in Chief of the military the narrowness of his general view, not only of war and international affairs, but life itself, was further revealed in his doctrine of pre-emptive strike. That can be used as a tactic when enemy invasion is pre-eminent, but never as a general strategy.
The rest of his presidency, with rare exceptions, has been an exercise in ineptitude.
Before the current economic mess, the clear census was bush was the worst
president in American history. His failure during this mess just cemented his
reputation as the WORST PRESIDENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY.
I have been meaning to create a list of worst presidents in American history
but time has been against me. I hope to get to this list soon, hopefully before the
election, but I make no promises.
bike_seat: his presidency has been pretty good and successful despite what liberals and the media will have you think. he’s hardly a failure"
K: I am truly afraid of your definition of “Failure”. The list of success is small, ummmmmmmmm, the rich have gotten richer and
the middle class and working poor are far poorer.
let us look at his failures: Iraq, Katrina,the lowest job growth since the depression, loss of jobs overseas,
two economic downturns including one that rivals the great depression, a major terrorist attack,
the patriot act, an increase in terrorism world wide, the loss of American prestige overseas,
the largest deficit in the history of the world, soaring gas prices, a more dangerous world then before
he came into office, I feel like there is more but I can’t recall it right now, oh yah, the loss of 600,000
jobs this year and an official unemployment rate of over 6% but really is closer to 10%. the mortgage collapse
which sank millions of people, the credit crunch which has stopped the housing market, the folding of huge companies
such as Lehman brothers and bear sterns, I am missing some but I am tired.
A testament to the resilience of the US and its role in the global economy. But what does Bush have to do with that? Aside from having rather grievously wounded it?
One can understand the continued loyalty and respect for the presidential office, despite the human failures of the men who have occupied it. Ideally the presidential pair are Mr and Mrs America (I prefer Uncle Sam and Aunt Samantha) who, because they represent our ideal. theycan do no wrong. Thus any criticsm of the presidential person is seen by many as an attack on the character of America itself.
Beginning with Nixon, that naive vision has gradually faded for many others. The trappings of office no longer awe an increasingly more educated and sophisticated electorate. And so it is difficult for the more educated to realize that at least half the population in rural areas have been brought up to remain entranced by the old naive vision of the presidency. We are each molded from birth to see only the realities of our own class.
So, for the more educated, when any American aspires to become the leader of the country, the abilities and life experiences of the candidate are more naturally measured against our own levels of life experiences.
Few of us in any of the lower classes can personally relate to George Bush. Most of us come from a background of poor to middle working class families, where existence is a monthly struggle to keep ahead of the bills. Our life experience is basically one of continuous striving for things we cannot afford, postions we cannot reach and influence we will never wield. Bush experienced none of it. He might as well be the son of a monarch. Eveything was thrown in his lap. His view is molded from birth to see only his own class. He has never been conscious of the people he leads. For him the American economy will always be fine and dandy.
How anybody can say they see him as a drinking buddy beats me. Potkin has laready listed his failures as a president.
The idea that half the country now wants to elect another millionaire’s son to the same office, and dump a guy who can relate to us, simly because his skin is the wrong color, emphasises the artifical nature of class indoctrination.
Watching Obama lift himself up by his own boot-straps and reach for the highest office in the land, while carrying the extra weight of a black skin, has already inspired me to have a deeper appreciation for the depth of character of Uncle Sam and Aunt Samantha. One thing I know for sure. I am going to get my lazy ass down to the voting booth come elction day, and drag along every mother’s son and daughter I can take with me, and give a guy I can relate to, every chance to get this country back on track.
You know, I almost feel sorry for Bush. I really don’t know enough about politics to determine how much blame should be placed on him, but I really don’t think most of the things that happened during his presidency are his fault. Since Peter produced a list of the most common complaints, it seems to me, I’ll just touch on them one by one:
Iraq: The plans to invade Iraq were drawn up, as far as I understand, long before Bush became president. You have the CIA and many others calling it a necessity. I don’t necessarily agree with the decision to invade Iraq, but I really don’t think it was his, and I can’t help but wonder how much pressure a man can take when everybody around him is telling him to do something, including trusted military advisers.
The loss of job overseas: the economy is globalizing as we speak, it seems. With internet and advances in communications, it’s now possible to easily do business all over the world, from anywhere in the world. Labor is cheaper overseas. Doesn’t it make sense for a business to hire overseas if it means spending less? Isn’t it all about the bottom line? How much control does the president have over this?
A major terrorist attack…while this happened during a Bush presidency, to claim it’s Bush’s fault seems ridiculous. It could’ve happened during anybody’s presidency, and unless the president spends all of his time doing the CIA and FBI’s job for them, I don’t see how any action he could’ve taken would have prevented it. Hindsight is always 20/20.
Two economic downturns: Again, hardly Bush’s fault. The stock bubble bursting had to do more with the years under Clinton’s presidency than Bush’s, and even then, it wasn’t Clinton’s fault. There are always underlying factors to these bubbles, sometimes involving legislation that’s passed. So shouldn’t the blame be shared by Congress?
Katrina: I’m all about compassion and helping other people. Again, correct me if I’m wrong, but for most of American history, when disaster strikes, wasn’t it handled locally by communities? Isn’t it a more recent trend for people to expect the most help from the federal government instead of their neighbors, local government, etc.?
Largest deficit in history: Again, I can’t blame Bush for spending the money. I thought Congress was supposed to determine how money is spent. Isn’t Congress as much to blame as Bush?
I admit, it was fun for me for a while to jump on the Bush hating bandwagon, but I just can’t believe that the President has the power to deserve the amount of blame he’s getting. To me, it just seems like really bad timing. The American people have dug themselves into a hole by overspending, living outside their means, and not demanding more from Congress, and then blame the president when it all goes to hell. That’s the vibe I’m getting.
Iraq isn’t a failure, the execution by the Bush administration may have been unbelievably horrible, but Iraq, has been, and largely is a success right now.
People don’t understand that the coalition had nothing to do with fracturing iraqi society, that Iraqi society had already started fracturing, the forces of jihadism were gaining support/strength, and its largely because of Saddam setting one religious faction against the other, not to mention some of the campaigns he engaged in.
The bush administration either had to step in, or watch a very likely civil war sweep the region, which would result in more deaths.
Today, because of the coalition, iraqi’s have an elected government, an elected government which supported FEMALES after they engaged in mass protests about sharia.
Do you people think this kind of thing was possible just a few years back? Are you incapable of understanding what a massive step women protesting in the streets is?
you know about the mass university building and stoppage of massive book burnings as well too right?
Shove all this shit under the table because you want to demon-ize republicans or even just Bush, but its not ‘liberal’ to deny massive LIBERAL CHANGES IN IRAQ, or that THEY MEAN NOTHING.
as IF the massive civil war is only an after-thought concerning the death-toll of iraqis. Over half of all recorded suicide bombings in history have happened in Iraq, and it has not been iraqis targeting military personnel only, its iraqi targeting other iraqi
thats the power of the type of civil war we’re talking about here.
A presidency that ignored iraq would have sucked, iraq may one day provide the US some freedom when it comes to securing oil. y’know, it is a big deal that the US is basically reliant upon fundamentalist countries for oil.
See the name ‘liberals’ mean, dumb fundamentalist. the republicans are at least largely fundamentalist at face value, instead we have liberals embracing multiculturalism to the point that they embrace repressive, sexist, racist etc shit for people, because thats their ‘culture’
pisses me off. Theres nothing liberal about inviting a trojan horse of multiculturalism, theres nothing liberal about discounting liberal changes in highly repressive fundamentalist states.
wtf have liberals become? “Iraq is a failure”
massive liberal changes in how females are treated as a ‘failure’. To who? bullshit. (Women are still treated like garbage, but comparatively, less like garbage.)
Bush was not pressured into the Iraq war. There were many who advised him against it, including Obama. The housing scam became clear over a year ago and he did nothing to stop it.
If we had invested the 5 billion lost to the war in Iraq, (and the estimated 3 trillion some analyists say will be the final total) on renewable energy, the infrasucture, free medicine and free education, Bush’s presidency would now be a roaring sucess and McCain would be a shoo-in. Bush and his cronies are too blame for the hole he has dug for all of us.
Even if many advised Bush against the war in Iraq, I don’t find that evidence that he wasn’t pressured into it.
In regards to the second statement: the president alone couldn’t decide to invest $500 billion into those things you mentioned, and I doubt that Congress would have supported any of those things.
You can act like the US didn’t have any responsibility to stabilizing iraq, after they helped set up the dictatorship that largely fractured it. That doesn’t make it true, though.