PDA

View Full Version : Bush - How Will History Judge him ?


LIMA OR ALPHA JUNK
12th Jan 2009, 22:51
Having seen his last informal press conference today where he admitted mistakes in his Presidency over Katrina, Mission Accomplished and the lack of discovery of WMDs is this a fair assessment.....

http://img371.imageshack.us/img371/2791/skyakafox0yf.jpg

Discuss.......

Ovation
12th Jan 2009, 23:01
History does not need pass judgment on him. His incompetence is already legendary.

Dushan
12th Jan 2009, 23:26
You must have watched a different press conference than the one I saw.
Regrets that some events didn't turn out as expected or hoped, but no admission of culpability.

Impress to inflate
12th Jan 2009, 23:32
How History Judge Him........As A **** !!:mad:

WhatsaLizad?
12th Jan 2009, 23:33
Not good.

But surely light years better than you would have been in the same job.

WhatsaLizad?
12th Jan 2009, 23:40
I will also add that the Katrina legacy has been wrapped around Bush's neck far more than deserved.

I'd rank his responsibility share of the disaster shortcomings at 5%. I'd give 40% to Ray Nagin, the Mayor of New Orleans, and the citizens 55% for tolerating their corrupt, Democratic parish, county, city and state leadership for nearly a century of mismangement.

con-pilot
13th Jan 2009, 00:48
YAWN!

Wow, a thread bashing President Bush, how unique. :hmm:


What, oh what are you guys going to do in eight days. :p

galaxy flyer
13th Jan 2009, 00:57
Truman was so disliked he didn't run in '52 and left office with approval ratings about equal to GWB's. Eisenhower was seen as a doddering old man. History has served both well. It will take, at least, a decade probably two, to even start to judge GWB. Those that hate him, cite his father's handling of Iraq in '90-'91 as a better example, but failure to achieve victory in '91 left the US with a 12-year, $5 billion-plus problem-how to contain Saddam.

That said, his, more accurately, Republican economic policy, is an unalloyed disaster. Next year's deficit alone will equal total US government spending in 2000. Spending has doubled in 8 years-simply unsustainable and inexcusable. The Republican Congress turned the US government into a vast spending arcade. And BHO won't turn the taps off, either. The US budget needs to be halved, not doubled in the next 8 years.

Katrina is simply not a Federal problem-100% of the blame lies with State and City non-leadership. The Governor and Mayor Nagin should have been impeached for incompetence. If not just tarred and feathered.

GF

con-pilot
13th Jan 2009, 01:07
Okay, okay, I'll get serious, if I have to. :(

Bottom line.

Bush did his job as President of the United States. There were no more major terrorist attacks since 9/11 in the United States in his terms in office.

Will Obama have the same success?

Time will tell, I pray Obama has the same success.

Tyres O'Flaherty
13th Jan 2009, 01:23
Fair enough Con

But terrorist attacks, almost by definition are a pinprick, however disgusting & unwarranted they may be.

How much harm can they do ( other than psychological ) to a nation of 300 million or thereabouts ?


Whereas, the costs to your economy of what came since, even to just your own compatriots (let alone the trouble it's storing up for the future) are huge

airfoilmod
13th Jan 2009, 02:00
Every dollar spent in the US must be signed off by Congress, no exceptions. If Bush was such a spender, he had 535 co-signers. Same with Katrina, he shoulders far too much of the culpability. One thing History will pose, why did he so seldom defend himself from criticism? He carried the weight, didn't complain or blame others (can you say the same about Willy?). He also had a mildly charming, self effacing style.

Worst Pres: tie, Nixon/Clinton.

Most overrated? tie: FDR, Lincoln

Best: Reagan

RatherBeFlying
13th Jan 2009, 02:21
Nixon blew so much money on Vietnam, he knocked the US$ off the gold standard and made inflation into a truly serious problem.

The last Bush is making Nixon look a model of fiscal rectitude -- now the danger is deflation:eek:

No problem though: once the Chinese have $5 trillion or so in T-bills, they will become very
per$ua$ive about bringing Taiwan back into the Motherland:E

Dushan
13th Jan 2009, 02:22
Worst Pres: tie, Nixon/Clinton.

Most overrated? tie: FDR, Lincoln

Best: Reagan

Best poster: airfoilmod

jackrowell
13th Jan 2009, 02:26
A lot of thoughtful Americans will tell you that the best President ever was Truman. Came to office almost by default, made the big decision about the atom bomb and won respect for his solid administration. But how do you judge him against the others. All of them had their particular problems and challenges. As you say, Bush shouldn't cop all thew blame - he was the front man for a lot of greedy incompetents. Australian Prime Minister (ex) was a top man in his own right but he had a great team feeding him the ball.

V2-OMG!
13th Jan 2009, 02:31
Bottom line.

Bush did his job as President of the United States. There were no more major terrorist attacks since 9/11 in the United States in his terms in office.

Will Obama have the same success?

Time will tell, I pray Obama has the same success.

con-pilot, good point.

And my Obamagasm is pending.

con-pilot
13th Jan 2009, 02:46
But terrorist attacks, almost by definition are a pinprick, however disgusting & unwarranted they may be.

How much harm can they do ( other than psychological ) to a nation of 300 million or thereabouts ?


Well, that is a rather unique view I must admit. There were 2,973 people killed on 9/11. You claim that is just a pinprick. Possibly so, unless you or a loved one was one of those 2,973 people killed.

In the Oklahoma City Federal Building bombing there were 168 killed and over 800 wounded, I guess that was just laughable.

So, these terrorist attacks that are, "almost by definition are a pinprick", should be basically ignore? I mean what the hell, it's not like they kill a whole bunch of people. At what point does one decide that terrorist attacks are to be considered a serious act?

30,000, very feasible with conventional weapons, would that be enough to be taken seriously?

How about 100,000 to one million people by a nuclear device? Shoot, when compared to the population of the world, just a drop in the bucket.

Now, if you don't mind me asking, just who defined terrorist attacks such as the one that occurred on 9/11 'a pinprick'?

BlueWolf
13th Jan 2009, 02:52
History will judge him as a man who was elected to be the President of the United States - twice.

I say WE should judge him as a pilot who never Prooned - or did he? :E

V2-OMG!
13th Jan 2009, 03:21
But terrorist attacks, almost by definition are a pinprick, however disgusting & unwarranted they may be.

How much harm can they do ( other than psychological ) to a nation of 300 million or thereabouts ?

Oh man, that's pretty insensitive, and the rationale is something right out of Dr. Strangelove.
General "Buck" Turgidson (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001715/): "I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh, depending on the breaks."

BTW, more wars are won by psychological vs. military defeat, i.e. know thy enemy.

Richo77
13th Jan 2009, 03:40
But can you really say that there were no more terrorist attacks because of GWB? Can he be held accountable for that alone?. Regardless of whether GWB was good, bad or indifferent i think if there was going to be an attack (god forbid), there would be one.

By using the same rationale as there were no more attacks on US soil, could'nt you then say he was responsible for letting 9/11 happen?.

Just a question, im not railing on anyone.

Remember opinions are like cowboy hats every a-hole has one.

max1
13th Jan 2009, 03:51
How many are killed by guns every year in the USA.

Howard Hughes
13th Jan 2009, 03:52
What, oh what are you guys going to do in eight days.
Praise the lord because the Messiah will have arrived, in the meantime back to the regular programming!;)

birrddog
13th Jan 2009, 04:13
*Yawn*




Apparently a yawn is not enough

obgraham
13th Jan 2009, 04:37
So help me understand.
Lima AJ, his Euro pals, and the US Left has scored an impressive victory. Elected a new President of the United States. Impressive gains in the House and Senate. Popular sentiment by and large in support of the new guys coming in. Media fawning all over them.

And still, they are rambling on about the crimes of the departing. What a sorry existence you must have. "Nattering Nabobs of Negativity" indeed!

Mac the Knife
13th Jan 2009, 05:02
The Agnew quote says it all..........

:ok:

Low Flier
13th Jan 2009, 05:25
Rupert Cornwell (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/rupert-cornwell/rupert-cornwell-the-bush-legacy-1299684.html) wrote a good piece on the subject.

So did Frank Rich (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/11/george-bush-us-foreign-policy).

Bill Maher (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=JYnCykN1Nr0) did a very funny analysis of the little prick.

V2-OMG!
13th Jan 2009, 05:53
History does not need pass judgment on us. Our incompetence is already legendary.
- Ovation
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
You must have watched a different aviation forum. Regrets that some events didn't turn out as expected or hoped, but no admission of culpability.
- Dushan
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
How History Judge Us........As A **** !!http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/censored.gif
- Impress to inflate
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Not good.

But surely light years better than you would have been in the same forum.
- WhatsaLizad
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
YAWN!
Wow, a thread bashing Pprune, how unique.
- con-pilot
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

.....and so on and so forth. :p


(Tongue-in-cheek, y'all....no offense intended or implied. Hope it doesn't put me in shite again! )

Howard Hughes
13th Jan 2009, 06:05
So many opportunities for Bush bashing, so little time...:}

Let it rest I say!:ok:

V2-OMG!
13th Jan 2009, 06:23
Howard Hughes, concur!

I'm curious as 'ell though.....who or what will be the next favourite bashee?

In the meantime, as this thread suggests, we could always bash ourselves! :(

haughtney1
13th Jan 2009, 06:48
I think history will soften the opinion/criticism, but several abiding images will endure.....
The elementary school where GW was informed about the attack on the trade towers...
Mission accomplised...
Git mo and abu ghraib....
The swaggering walk :E

GW to me appeared to be out of his depth at times, I also think he surrounded himself with people who are far more politically savvy than he could ever hope to be.
His choice of VP hasn't been covered here, and I wonder how history will judge a man who shoots friends in the face :)