History How will history judge President George W. Bush?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Loren Booda
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    History Judge
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the historical judgment of President George W. Bush, with many participants asserting that he will be remembered primarily for the Iraq War, which is characterized as a significant foreign policy failure. Opinions vary on whether he is the worst president in U.S. history, with some arguing that his actions, particularly regarding executive privilege, debt accumulation, and domestic surveillance, have set dangerous precedents. Comparisons are made to past presidents, notably Richard Nixon, with some arguing that Nixon's administration was more damaging due to its secretive nature and the Watergate scandal. Others contend that Bush's initiation of war for personal reasons marks a more severe failure. The conversation reflects a broader concern about learning from history, with participants expressing skepticism about the American public's memory and attention span regarding past presidencies. Overall, the thread highlights deep divisions in the assessment of Bush's legacy and the implications of his presidency for future governance.
  • #31
Evo said:
Was Lincoln a criminal?

According to Booth (and the CSA), he was.


Why do you think Bush doesn't want to join the World Court?

-------------------------------

I don't think I was the person that first brought up Nixon (or had a long post about him either)--
 
Last edited:
Science news on Phys.org
  • #32
rewebster said:
Why do you think Bush doesn't want to join the World Court?
Because we stand behind our soldiers and don't subject our soldiers to the law of other countries. We have our own military courts.

The US isn't the only country to not sign and it's probably the only thing I agree with Bush on.
 
  • #33
Evo said:
Because we stand behind our soldiers and don't subject our soldiers to the law of other countries. We have our own military courts.

The US isn't the only country to not sign and it's probably the only thing I agree with Bush on.

I don't think the World Court would be as hard on Bush as they were on Milosevic, because of 911 mostly.

Maybe Bush will be a hair different, now, in that Karl (that guy who read and followed his own interpretation of marx--Das Kapital) isn't roving around--but it won't be enough to not look at him as an incompetent leader.
 
Last edited:
  • #34
Bush may be incompetant as a President, but he's not the most criminally minded President we have had.
 
  • #35
Evo said:
Bush may be incompetent as a President, but he's not the most criminally minded President we have had.

I don't think all the cards have been shown yet though either.




I personally don't think he's smart enough to be "THE MOST criminally minded"
------------------------------------
maybe the most criminally least minded
----------------------------------------
(I like that video of him and the look on his face trying to open that locked door in China---makes me laugh every time)
---------------------------------------------

Bush has already bragged about breaking something like over 700 Laws of the United States of America.
 
Last edited:
  • #36
Here, Cheney tells us how to remember Bush.


I once quoted the last comment made in this video as a signature. Soon after I received as very nasty pm from someone who said that he thought I was really a great guy until he saw this. Now one would think that he would take issue with Bush and Cheney, but instead he decided to hate me.

I think Bush [Rove machine] will also be remembered for dividing this nation as no one has since Jefferson Davis.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #37
Pffft, tell him to shove off Ivan.
 
  • #38
youtube is great





at 1:07 and 2:02
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #39
Evo said:
Because we stand behind our soldiers and don't subject our soldiers to the law of other countries. We have our own military courts.

The US isn't the only country to not sign and it's probably the only thing I agree with Bush on.

countries that sign are subject to punitive action by the usa, so there are fewer countries signing then there otherwise would be.
 
  • #40
devil-fire said:
countries that sign are subject to punitive action by the usa, so there are fewer countries signing then there otherwise would be.
How many foreign soldiers occupy US lands?
 
  • #41
Evo said:
How many foreign soldiers occupy US lands?

how many US soldiers (and other undercover agents) are in how many different countries?
 
  • #42
rewebster said:
how many US soldiers (and other undercover agents) are in how many different countries?
No, devilfire made the comment
devilfire said:
countries that sign are subject to punitive action by the usa
Obviously that's a ludicrous statement considering that the US has troops all over the world. So, how many foreign troops occupy US territories that would be at the same risk?
 
  • #43
Evo said:
No, devilfire made the comment Obviously that's a ludicrous statement considering that the US has troops all over the world. So, how many foreign troops occupy US territories that would be at the same risk?

just pretend that devilfire asked instead of me


BTW--I like Waterhouse and most of the Pre-Raphaelites (including the initial PRB's paintings) and Morris --- and, that Rossetti, what a tortured soul.

http://www.jwwaterhouse.com/view.cfm?recordid=28

(the little insert of the painting on the upper right is nice in that way the water is moving)
 
Last edited:
  • #44
russ_watters said:
Humans have short attention spans. Bush is considered by many to be the worst ever because people can remember how bad he is. Except for those who were alive at the time, most people don't remember that Nixon was actually worse. And no one remembers the half dozen other contenders for the title. How about Polk? Johnson? Nixon? Kennedy? Harding? Hoover?
Polk was a very effective President (not necessarily a good thing if you disagree with the Mexican-American war). He probably achieved more of his objectives than any other single term President.

Johnson was a very effective President, domestically. He's the one that turned Kennedy's dreams into reality. His only true failure was Viet Nam. A fairly big failure, but he failed at a war he inherited.

Nixon was a very effective President. He was also a criminal. How you weigh each affects how you judge Nixon, and being a criminal has to weigh pretty heavily - perhaps not quite enough to earn worst President when the entire picture is considered.

Hoover wasn't a very good President. He belongs more in the same category as Carter. Pretty smart, but not enough leadership ability to make anything they did work.

Kennedy was pretty bad in the competence department. At least the situations he made his mistakes in weren't as serious as the situations Bush made his mistakes in. Plus, Kennedy usually had an escape plan when his ideas went bad. Kennedy was also pretty lackluster in his efforts towards achieving a lot of more idealistic goals. If he hadn't been followed by Johnson, Kennedy wouldn't have any of the admiration he gets as a President.

You might have a case with Harding. He was easily as inept as Bush. However, just like a great President needs a crisis in history to be recognized as one of the greatest, an incompetent President needs a crisis to be recognized as the worst. Just like the crash and depression gives Hoover the nod over Carter's double digit inflation, failing in a post 9/11 world gives Bush the nod over Harding.
 
  • #46
The problem with defining the wrongs of the Bush presidency is that it is not just one thing or even one area where he did wrong or lied about. One needs to look at everything that the man has done over a period of years.

The link below is a small glimpse at just one area.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #47
Notice how he conveniently excludes Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus.

You can read about it here.

Lincoln was criticized heavily, and for many of the same reasons Bush is today (i.e. mishandling of the war and trampling on civil liberties).

My 2 cents about Olbermann: he takes himself far too seriously. I have read comments about how he speaks as though he is wearing a powdered wig in some 17th century courtroom:

"You Sir, are a disgrace, and a travesty to the law abiding citizens of this commonwealth..."

I tend to agree with that characterization. I would not be suprised if many subscribe to his opinions only because of his eloquent and polished delivery, marked with strategic camera changes. He may be more refined and educated than most of the talking heads on television, but he is as much a cynic as any of them.
 
  • #48
Futobingoro said:
Notice how he conveniently excludes Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus.

Lincoln was faced with an domestic insurrection, Bush was not and is not.

My 2 cents about Olbermann: he takes himself far too seriously. I have read comments about how he speaks as though he is wearing a powdered wig in some 17th century courtroom:

I would imagine then that you prefer the speaking style of Rush Limbaugh.


I tend to agree with that characterization. I would not be suprised if many subscribe to his opinions only because of his eloquent and polished delivery, marked with strategic camera changes. He may be more refined and educated than most of the talking heads on television, but he is as much a cynic as any of them.

This sounds a bit like "kill the messenger" to me. Olberman is too eloquent so he should be disregarded!/B]:rolleyes:

There are many more sources online that one can choose from and they cover many more problematic areas of the Bush administration. I have a feeling that you would find a way to discredit all of them unless they are saying what you want to hear.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/view/
 
  • #49
Edward, Olbermann descibes habeas corpus as "that wellspring of protection from which all essential liberties flow." Surely Lincoln's suspension of that "wellspring of protection" (regardless of the circumstances) would be noteworthy enough to make Olbermann's history lesson, would it not? Is it not an example, as Olbermann said, of "a government more dangerous to our liberty, than is the enemy it claims to protect us from"?

Olbermann deliberately failed to mention the Lincoln example, as it would be likening Bush's policy to that of a "good" president. And even if he could have explained it away, it would have protracted his point. In any case, it is a glaring omission.

Indeed, the subsequent cases of Ex parte Merryman (1861) and Ex parte Milligan (1866) were relevant in the ruling of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004).

By the way, I do not watch/listen to any political personalities; I find they partake in sensationalism. In the case of Olbermann, and I am paraphrasing of course, "Fearmongers govern this country, run for the hills!"

I hope you see the irony.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #50
I read about this quite awhile ago:

At one of the very first cabinet meetings, maybe the first, while all the Secretaries (defense, etc.) were getting organized, Bush's first main topic of interest wasn't National security, no child left behind (bad idea), immigration, etc.-----it was the great cheeseburgers that the White House chef made, and wanting to know if anyone else wanted one right now.


For that important time period before 911 and maybe too much of the other time, I think little bush thought he the president of the biggest frat house,-- the RNC (and the USA secondly). I don't know about anyone else, but every time I saw him 'sign' a bill, or did almost anything 'presidential'---he'd look up at the camera or audience with that goofy smile of his, and, its almost like he's thinking, 'I still can't believe the American people picked ME--just because I was my dad's son--and, oh yeah, and I have to keep mostly doing and saying what Rove and Cheney think is right--and oh yeah, I forgot, don't smile so much'.
 
  • #51
Futobingoro said:
Indeed, the subsequent cases of Ex parte Merryman (1861) and Ex parte Milligan (1866) were relevant in the ruling of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004).

By the way, I do not watch/listen to any political personalities; I find they partake in sensationalism. In the case of Olbermann, and I am paraphrasing of course, "Fearmongers govern this country, run for the hills!"

I hope you see the irony.

I do see the irony to a degree, but Lincoln was faced with a domestic situation totally unlike anything that we have seen since the civil war.

From you link: The difference between then and now is obvious.

Lambdin P. Milligan and four others were accused of planning to steal Union weapons and invade Union prisoner-of-war camps. Once the first prisoner of war camp was liberated they planned to use the liberated soldiers to help fight against the Government of Indiana and free other camps of Confederate soldiers. The plan was leaked and went to court, while in court they were sentenced to hang by a military court in 1864. However, their execution was not set until May 1865, so they were able to argue the case after the Civil War ended. Milligan also attempted to take over the state governments of Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan.

I don't watch much television myself. But I do try to watch enough to be aware of what is presented to the general public. In so much as most everything presented to the public about Iraq and WMD was one big fear propaganda machine, I thought it might be a wise idea to see for myself.

I was quite surprised by Olberman's rant. I have never seen him on television. Ironically it was one of the first links that came up when I googled: "worst president ever". perhaps he should be labeled "the anti Rush".

But as I stated in other posts, it is not just about the administration and habeas corpus, it is everything that they have done under their dark shroud of secrecy and their total disregard for the congress.
 
  • #52
Evo said:
No, devilfire made the comment Obviously that's a ludicrous statement considering that the US has troops all over the world. So, how many foreign troops occupy US territories that would be at the same risk?

I'm not sure how the number of non-American troops on American lands has anything to do with the punitive actions imposed by the USA on countries that subject themselves to the jurisdiction of the international criminal court. one thing i can recall off the top of my head is that the USA said they will withdraw peacekeeping forces from countries that sign, so if the government of Sudan wanted to have some generals brought to trial in the ICC, the USA would no longer be part of any peace keeping in Sudan.

to the best of my knowledge though, zero foreign soldiers are occupying US lands outside maybe some duties to do with embassies.
 
  • #53
is anybody from USA here, i mean an American! i would like to hear from him about this topic that if George Bush so controversial, then why did these people elected him for the second time.....please do reply if anybody here from USA
 
  • #54
nishu1988 said:
is anybody from USA here, i mean an American! i would like to hear from him about this topic that if George Bush so controversial, then why did these people elected him for the second time.....please do reply if anybody here from USA

Bush was elected because Al Gore and John Kerry where the other options. It's a lose lose either way, but admittedly Al and John are lesser evils.
 
  • #55
Greg Bernhardt said:
Bush was elected because Al Gore and John Kerry where the other options. It's a lose lose either way, but admittedly Al and John are lesser evils.

Both were mediocre, but they were running against Bush.

In the Bush-Kerry election, the top four issues, in order, were moral values, the economy, terrorism, and Iraq. Bush and Kerry split the four categories. Among those whose top priority was moral values and terrorism, Bush won. Among those whose top priority was the economy and Iraq, Kerry won. The difference is that Bush received 80 and 86 percent among voters that considered moral values and terrorism the top priority. Kerry only received 82 and 74 percent in his two strong categories.

By attributes, 91% who considered religious faith a president's most important trait voted for Bush and 91% who considered intelligence a president's most important trait voted for Kerry. Unfortunately, more people consider religious faith important than intelligence (8% to 7%). That didn't really decide the election, though.

Among the four most important traits, Kerry won 95% of the largest group, "will bring change", but Bush won the next three most important traits: clear stand on issues, strong leader, honest and trustworthy.

The 'flip-flop' nickname and the Swift Boat Ads had a devastating effect on Kerry's image. Bush appeared natural and strong. Kerry appeared fake and weak.

Most white, married males over 30 voted for Bush while most people under 30 voted for Kerry. I think Abby Hoffman said something about that a long time ago, but people quit listening to him somewhere around the time he turned into a white, married male over 30.

http://www.multied.com/elections/2004/2004mainelec/exitpolls/Exit.html
 
  • #56
With having read only the title, I wondered to myself:

How will history judge the people that voted for Bush two times in a row?
 
  • #57
Daily Show: Bush’s Magical History Tour

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/08/24/daily-show-bushs-magical-history-tour/
Last night Jon took President Bush to task for the disgusting distortion of history he employed Wednesday to justify his endless war in Iraq. Little does Bush know (not surprising), we keep the tapes from earlier in his presidency where he dismissed outright the Iraq-Vietnam comparison. The shameless propaganda knows no limits.
 
  • #58
The only mistake Nixon made was to get caught. :smile:
 
  • #59
History will judge Bush on the outcome of the Iraq war.
 
  • #60
Pythagorean said:
How will history judge the people that voted for Bush two times in a row?

I know that is when many people like me lost all faith in this country.

I will never say the pledge or fly a flag again. If I have a practical way to leave, I will. At this point the only thing that can turn this around for me is the impeachment of Bush and Cheney. If that doesn't happen, then I believe that the US system, and esp the people, have failed. I have talked with or heard many people who feel the same way.

There was a time when I was willling to die for my country. So for me, that's how much damage Bush and his supporters have done, and that's how they will be remembered.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

History British Isles - a piece of visual history
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
Mad Magazine - A brief history
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
History 536 AD - The 'Worst' Year in History?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
History How will George W. Bush figure in world history?
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
6K
History Uncle Mietek: Tracing Family History in a Military Cemetery
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
My list of the top five heavyweight boxers of all time
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
6K
News What State Would the US Be in if George W. Bush Had a Third Term as President?
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
10K
History Is History Just a Collection of Myths and Legends?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
9K
Science history, falling objects before Galileo
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
Who is the most overrated president in US history?
  • · Replies 80 ·
3
Replies
80
Views
11K