How Will They Rate The Bush Legacy?

spuman

Well-Known Member
Not trying to step on any toes ,but it was the Justice that that was giving the oath that screwed it up.I'm sure Mr. O had it memorized for quite some time.

Here's a thought to those bush haters out there:What would the state of this great country be if Gore or Kerry would have won in their elections respectively?
 

Sammie

Well-Known Member
Iraq, in response to 9/11, will always be the defining factor in talking about Bush.

Now, check out 1993 when the World Trade Center was bombed by Islamic fundamentalists. Clinton-nonresponsive.

1995. Islamic fundamentalists bombed the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, where several U.S. military personnel lost their lives. Clinton-nonresponsive.

1998. The U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed, killing hundreds. Clinton-nonresponsive.

2000. The U.S.S. Cole was bombed by Islamic fundamentalists, killing 17 of our sailors and injuring many more. Clinton-nonresponsive.

That makes four terrorist attacks in seven years = one terrorist attack almost every two years under a commander in chief who openly disrespected and tried to destroy the integrity of our military. And may I add something special here - Bush has never made a crass remark about Clinton.

On the other hand, within a month of 9/11, this country responded militarily, even tho it cost W. politically. But guess what. We haven't had an attack since.

So there you have it. Iraq, smack dab in the Middle East, is safer and freer. Their new democracy and modern constitution, opposed to only the jihad they had before, will speak volumes in that part of the world.

One terrorist attack in the last 7 years; four terrorist attacks in the 7 years before that. Need help with the math?

One more thing. Bush was not a realtor, a loan officer or a banker. He did not sit people down and encourage them to sign loans that they would be unable to repay, despite the fact that he's now hated for these financial woes.
 

av8torntn

Well-Known Member
Pro

No attacks on American soil since 9-11.


Con


Nothing that would outweigh the Pro.



From my point of view the more harshly the ultra liberals view a President the more favorable his legacy is viewed. The problem with Bush is he implemented some ultra liberal policies. In the long run the expansion of the Governments role in education while successful in its goal of raising test scores for inner city schools may in the long run be like all Government programs and be viewed as a farther erosion of freedom and grow into an unrecognizable cluster of inept Government employees. The same may end up being true with his expansion of government funded health care through the prescription drug benefit.
 

The Other Side

Well-Known Troll
Troll
The Bush legacy has already been written. In fact, in memoriam, some presidents have been placed on something of monetary value, like money.

They now have something for GW BUSH to memorialize.

America has a rich tradition putting our most honored leaders on its currencies.

George Washington, our nation's first president and leader of the American Revolution.


Abe Lincoln, our most honorable leader pulled our nation through its darkest time.


Alexander Hamilton, founding father, first secretary of the treasury and leader of the constitutional convention.


Andrew Jackson, "Old Hickory " fought the British in New Orleans .



Ulysses Grant, Union army general, lead the North through the Civil War.


Ben Franklin, Genius inventor, political theorist and leading author of the constitution.

Finally, we have someone to put on the food stamp!!!!!!!



"WHAT AN IDIOT" should be the postscript!:dead:
 

diesel96

Well-Known Member
If your all about regurgitating over, and over again that Bush kept American soil safe than you gotta give Clinton some love also...

I believe Monica can claim the goods there...

And the goods on her dress as well....:wink2:
Oh well, at least nobody died.
 

JimJimmyJames

Big Time Feeder Driver
The jack hunters conservatives turning their back on the republican party is what now puts true conservatives in the nightmare scenario of a a liberal president and liberal congress. Conservatives were miffed that they did not have caviar on the election menu and must now endure four or more years of ivy league speech writing with little substance from the great messiah.

Ah, the "stab in the back" theory. That classic post WWI German dodge of responsibility resurfaces again! The Republican failure at the polls could not possibly be the responsibilty of the leaders of the party that has strayed from it's conservative roots.

Open borders, increased beauracracy, more social programs, huge budget deficits, and making "the world safe for democracy". Add a trashed economy and I guess we have the marks of compassionate conservatism . We can also call this neo-conservatism. I'll go one further and just call it plain ol' liberalism dressed up in anti-abortion, pro second amendment duds.

Maybe Americans just feel that having genuine liberals in power might be better than having people who pretend their not. You have to give the Democrats credit, at least they are not liars (well, maybe with the exception in regards to their sexual escapades :wink2:). In any case, the American people abandoned the Republican party because of Bush, not because of Ron Paul.
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member
Finally, we have someone to put on the food stamp!!!!!!!

Give credit where credit due, that was a pretty good one TOS! And how ironic would it be for a republican president to hold that distinction. But then why should it be a surprise to begin with. Since the FDR/Truman days which many point to for beginning the welfare years which ended in 1952' we've had about 56 years pass in time and of that, 36 years have been under republican Presidents and so often democrats get the ALL blame for the welfare state. As they like to say on MythBusters, "I guess we can call that myth busted!" :happy-very:

But the subject at hand is Bush so here we go!
:wink2:

Bush's legacy IMO will take years, many decades even to truly merit out in any real measure what it's true success is. Over the last couple of years, tapes of LBJ have come forth and we've learned for example not only from these tapes put they concur McNamara's admission that the Gulf of Tonkin incident never happened. Or what merits out in truth is that the premise for justifying the Vietnam war esculation was a lie. What will Iraq prove over time? The success seen now IMO deosn't mean success over the longhaul and if one looks at the history of this people and of Mesopotamia in general. The history even in the short term spans of time in which we are thinking just doesn't give well to the odds so I'm a contraian to many of the Red State polly anna's we have here. Hey, that region is as capable as any of re-writting history as they say but for now I'll stick to the known track record!

As Presidents and their legacy go, for years, we've believed JFK almost of immortal, godlike status and for the most part did no wrong and more than once have I wondered back to what would be different had JFK had never been shot. Would there have been no Vietnam as some suggest or no further Cold War as others say? But turns out he also taped a lot of his office conversations and they are now coming to light and giving us a better view of the real JFK.

A recent 3 hour "JFK Revealed" on the History Channel more than explodes the myth of the perfect JFK and you see him as not only rather inept but played the office of the President as if he were some Hollywood Star and literally created a make believe world around it to boot. He was also more involved in the coup in Vietnam than it was first understood and how ironic that President Diem is assassinated and then 20 days later so is JFK. I guess a good lesson in positive karma is in this footnote of history. I also found it interesting that the JFK Revealed program posed the question of JFK living and his 2nd term looking back was probably pretty sure. However, the program also believed the sex scandals would have surfaced in the 2nd term and unlike Clinton, JFK would have been removed form office. Also his ill health may also have taken his life before his 2nd term was done as the program exposed the charade created by his handliers to portray him in a way 180 degrees from true reality.

What will we learn decades from now when private office conversations of the Bush years start making it into the mainstream. Being Bush and I share in common the nearly same generational years, I don't know if I will be around to see and hear it (hope I am) but what will we learn then? The track record so far with previous Presidents doesn't build up a warm and fuzzy feeling, I'll tell you that.

As I look back over the last 40 plus years if not longer, Woodrow Wilson was a huge influence on American Presidents and both domestic and foreign policy. Right, Wrong or somewhere in the middle, Bush had the events of 9/11 that made/gave or whatever the need/reason to act and I'll give him credit where credit is due, he made a choice and stuck to it no matter what. The vast majority of politicians these days would make a choice with one hand while holding a finger in the wind from the other and the moment the winds changed, they'd pop the umbrella faster than Mary Poppins and shift policy completely. I think this more than anything else pissed the political establishment off because they do like their umbrellas and Bush said we collectively made a political choice via the political process and now we will see it through. The political establishment made the choice of regime change with the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998' and before the first of the first responders hit the smoldering piles of what were the twin towers, Iraq was already front and center. Here was an opportunity to allow gov't to complete a piece of legislation they had passed some 3 years before. This was a paradigm shift from the umbrella business as usual crowd. Even though I disagree on so many levels with Bush on his policies, (democrats to for that matter)I tip my hat as the man had balls to stick to his decisions, right or wrong and see them through and in many ways make the gov't live with the very beast they themselves had in their own hasty and political mischief created.

Have you Red Staters dared ask some of our Blue State friends here why we've heard not a peep about amending of abolishing the infamous Patriot Act? Or what about FISA? Where's the just indignation and from the very crowd who railed on it for years now that they hold the keys to power? Those democrats voted these kinds of draconian policies in and when the winds changed, out came the umbrellas and the howls if indignation with it even though many voted for it. But now that we have a new weatherman and they can control where the winds come from.....listen....hear it.......yeah it's a mouse fart! :happy-very:

But as I mention Wilson, I do think the present day in many respects should be judged using the eyeglasses of the past and I'm speaking of the Wilson years and specifically around WW1 or The Great War. This war in itself laid seedbed to Nazism, communism, WW2, the Cold War, the conflicts in Indo-China and of course the Middle East as we know it today. But also I think more than that, it also laid the seedbed of much of domestic policy and gov't action we also see today. It's in this thinking that I refer those who choose to consider another POV concerning the Wilson era as well as considering longterm questions post Bush with this piece linked below that discusses that very thing.

Enjoy!

http://mises.org/story/3292
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member
Ah, the "stab in the back" theory. That classic post WWI German dodge of responsibility resurfaces again! The Republican failure at the polls could not possibly be the responsibilty of the leaders of the party that has strayed from it's conservative roots.

Open borders, increased beauracracy, more social programs, huge budget deficits, and making "the world safe for democracy". Add a trashed economy and I guess we have the marks of compassionate conservatism . We can also call this neo-conservatism. I'll go one further and just call it plain ol' liberalism dressed up in anti-abortion, pro second amendment duds.

Maybe Americans just feel that having genuine liberals in power might be better than having people who pretend their not. You have to give the Democrats credit, at least they are not liars (well, maybe with the exception in regards to their sexual escapades :wink2:). In any case, the American people abandoned the Republican party because of Bush, not because of Ron Paul.

I love a man who's willing to just kick em' in the balls and be done with it!

Nice post Jim!
 

tieguy

Banned
Ah, the "stab in the back" theory. That classic post WWI German dodge of responsibility resurfaces again! The Republican failure at the polls could not possibly be the responsibilty of the leaders of the party that has strayed from it's conservative roots.

Open borders, increased beauracracy, more social programs, huge budget deficits, and making "the world safe for democracy". Add a trashed economy and I guess we have the marks of compassionate conservatism . We can also call this neo-conservatism. I'll go one further and just call it plain ol' liberalism dressed up in anti-abortion, pro second amendment duds.

Maybe Americans just feel that having genuine liberals in power might be better than having people who pretend their not. You have to give the Democrats credit, at least they are not liars (well, maybe with the exception in regards to their sexual escapades :wink2:). In any case, the American people abandoned the Republican party because of Bush, not because of Ron Paul.

you almost had me until you actually tried to say the democrats are not liars. I'm afraid it totally destroyed your argument.

compassionate conservatism and neo conservatism. Sorry you will have to choose you can't label him with both. But in fairness its been a smear that the left has somehow been able to pull off. Our socialistic minded president also being a neo conservative. I hope you at least understand the difference?

And you're probably indirectly right. Americans need an occasional reminder on just how bad the Liberals can screw up the country.

Obama has not even been in office three days and just boosted the liberals arch enemy Rush Limbaughs ratings and stature by trying to suppress him. Its going to be a fun four years. :happy-very:

Your other point on ron paul makes no sense since no one blamed the lunatic for the election results. Your post did apparently score points with at least one ron paul groupie here. Since you did bring up the self proclaimed genius the point could also be made that Bush did his job and that perhaps it was time for gods gift to the american people ron paul to step up. Instead he told everyone how smart he is while he tripped all over his shoe strings. With idiots like him stepping up to grab the reins liberals should have a long run in control.
 
Last edited:

diesel96

Well-Known Member
Many of the disenfranchised Republicans I've spoken with have expressed that they didn't leave their party, but rather their party left them.
 

tieguy

Banned
Many of the disenfranchised Republicans I've spoken with have expressed that they didn't leave their party, but rather their party left them.

I don't think they know what they are talking about.
republicans had all kinds of choices in the primaries. registered republican voters then chose a middle of the road semi-socialistic candidate john mccain. The neo conservative and hard core factions then abandoned the party because their type of candidate did not win.



 

JimJimmyJames

Big Time Feeder Driver
Tieguy, Democrats are not liars in and of the fact that they have liberal platforms that they than act on. I know that if I vote for a Democrat I am probably am going to get a person who will support abortion, gun control legislation, affirmative action, increased support of the U.N.'s agenda, etc.

When I vote Republican I don't know what I am going to get.

As for Ron Paul, I really do not understand how one cannot respect a medical doctor who has chosen public service as his life's work. Maybe the Republican mainstream resents his libertarian leanings. Maybe he is just not "Hollywood" enough for the general public to accept. All I know is that not another politician has inspired me like Ron Paul has since Pat Buchanan ran for president in 2000.

wkmac, thank you for the complement. I am honored :happy2:.

Many of the disenfranchised Republicans I've spoken with have expressed that they didn't leave their party, but rather their party left them.

diesel96, my sentiments exactly.

And tieguy, though I don't always agree with your posts I always respect them.
 

Overpaid Union Thug

Well-Known Member
Bush will be judged based on the same philosophy that got Obama elected. That philosophy is ignorance. Plenty of ignorant people got Obama elected and they did so in the same manner a window shopper would select a pair of paints from the store display window based on appearance and appeal without trying them on for size or comparing the price and quality with other brands. Its these people that blindly believed(s) the left wing propaganda that ignorantly blamed(s) Bush for everything. So, basically Bush will be judged by people that wouldn't recognize the truth if it were engraved on the front end of a locomotive engine thats pulling all the knowledge of the world behind and it as it hits them head on.
 

Jones

fILE A GRIEVE!
Staff member
Bush will be judged based on the same philosophy that got Obama elected. That philosophy is ignorance. Plenty of ignorant people got Obama elected and they did so in the same manner a window shopper would select a pair of paints from the store display window based on appearance and appeal without trying them on for size or comparing the price and quality with other brands. Its these people that blindly believed(s) the left wing propaganda that ignorantly blamed(s) Bush for everything. So, basically Bush will be judged by people that wouldn't recognize the truth if it were engraved on the front end of a locomotive engine thats pulling all the knowledge of the world behind and it as it hits them head on.
And yet somehow, these same ignorant people (your words) elected Bush not once, but twice! I'm sure you would agree that it's only fitting to have his place in history judged by the same morons who voted him in, yes?
 

Overpaid Union Thug

Well-Known Member
And yet somehow, these same ignorant people (your words) elected Bush not once, but twice! I'm sure you would agree that it's only fitting to have his place in history judged by the same morons who voted him in, yes?

I believe that was my point exactly. We have become a window shopping society. It's easier for some people to make quick decisions based on visual stimulation and spoon fed propaganda rather than researching and investigating for themselves.

It seems like the sole purpose of the average citizen's brain is to do nothing but be a collection point for the mainstream media and commercial industry to send their propaganda to. They are wirelessly wired to the media. If big brother says that "change" is needed and the only way to get it is to vote for the second coming of Jimmy Carter then that's what the average citizen will do. Never mind that the better idea would be to look within themselves for change instead of relying on a false god. So, yeah its only fitting that Bush's place in history be judged by the same people that voted him into office twice. And by the way....I wasn't one of them.
 

The Other Side

Well-Known Troll
Troll
Iraq, in response to 9/11, will always be the defining factor in talking about Bush.

Hopefully you are not connecting IRAQ to 911, I'd like to say you have some integrity.

Now, check out 1993 when the World Trade Center was bombed by Islamic fundamentalists. Clinton-nonresponsive.

Funny how right wing neo hawk propaganda takes hold of the lambs. Two key points to what you said here: first, you describe those responsible as "ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISTS". Hmmm, can you provide the exact country where these "I.friend." terrorists originated? Hopefully your smart enough to know that this has never been established. The right wing machine however, plays a key role in your explanations. If they use a "general" term to describe the terrorists, then people will ignore the obvious questions, and place blame where they are not suppose to.

Secondly, when you say Clinton was non-responsive, I ask you this: "who was he suppose to attack" to make it right?

In Saudi Arabia, there are hundreds of "Islamic fundamentalists" chanting for the death of america. In FACT, SAUDI ARABIA provides the largest funding towards the construction of ALL the Madrassas in the world.

Why not attack SAUDI ARABIA and end this "islamic Fundamentalism" and create a democracy?

Why leave Saudi Arabia alone? They still chop off heads, they still mistreat women, they still beat and torture women, they torture their own people. This barbaric country had direct ties to the funding of the 911 hijackers.

But all you can do is blame Clinton?

1995. Islamic fundamentalists bombed the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, where several U.S. military personnel lost their lives. Clinton-nonresponsive.

Again, same "Islamic fundamentalists"?

1998. The U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed, killing hundreds. Clinton-nonresponsive.

Again, same "Islamic fundamentalists"?

2000. The U.S.S. Cole was bombed by Islamic fundamentalists, killing 17 of our sailors and injuring many more. Clinton-nonresponsive.

Again, same "Islamic fundamentalists"?

That makes four terrorist attacks in seven years = one terrorist attack almost every two years under a commander in chief who openly disrespected and tried to destroy the integrity of our military. And may I add something special here - Bush has never made a crass remark about Clinton.

Funny how you rate responses. First you blame Clinton for not attacking the country of "islamic Fundamentalists" for terrorist attacks, then you praise a jacka$$ for attacking a country that had nothing to do with any terrorist act towards america.

IF you are referring to the cutting of the defense budget, well my friend, thats called running a business. We have enough weapons in this country to kill everyone on the planet 10 times over. Sorry you feel that cutting useless military projects aimed at overkill in order to properly run a country's budget interferes in your willingness to create a war nation.

You got what you wanted in BUSHED, but WE are paying for it. He is laughing all the way to crawford. What was his sacrifice? Allbeit, he now is the president with the lowest approval rating in the history of the USA, he will always be remembered for ruining this country.

He said it himself, he believed he could find new ways to harm this country, and he was correct.

Freudian slip: Bush Threatening the United States

On the other hand, within a month of 9/11, this country responded militarily, even tho it cost W. politically. But guess what. We haven't had an attack since.

So there you have it. Iraq, smack dab in the Middle East, is safer and freer. Their new democracy and modern constitution, opposed to only the jihad they had before, will speak volumes in that part of the world.

What are you smoking? Freer? Safer? Jihad? Car bombings? Sectarian killings? 89% unemployment? No electricity? No fresh water? Unable to travel city to city without fear of getting killed? 401 thousand civilians killed since the start of the war?

This is your definition of freer and safer? Since we invaded, there were points where over 200 civilians a day were being killed one way or the other, does that sound like victory to you?

I know, you will retort with this gem "freedom isnt free", but your not paying the price, they are.

We destroyed a country, we ruined the way of life for another race of peoples. We tried to force our will on a nation that never asked us to. We were not invited into IRAQ to change they way IRAQIs lives their lives.

We went in solely for money, greed and power.

Time will tell, one country cannot change another just because we have better weapons.

Where was the Jihad? Of the many religious factions in IRAQ, which one specifically called for a JIHAD? Man, I am close to dying laughing at you.

One terrorist attack in the last 7 years; four terrorist attacks in the 7 years before that. Need help with the math?

LOL, not even comparable.

One more thing. Bush was not a realtor, a loan officer or a banker. He did not sit people down and encourage them to sign loans that they would be unable to repay, despite the fact that he's now hated for these financial woes.

I suggest you do some research on the HOME OWNERSHIP SOCIETY, the DOWN PAYMENT INVESTMENT ACT and THE DOWNPAYMENT ASSISTANCE ACT of 2002.

ALL created and introduced by your fearless jacka$$ GW BUSH.

Then you will have some comprehension of how the housing bubble started, grew to inflation, and then exploded in his face.

All the right wing finger pointing on talk radio will never set you in the right direction.

You used the "term" "islamic fundamentalists" as if they all came from the same place. This was the smoke that was blown up your keister by the right wing starting with GW BUSHED.

With the help of FAUX NEWS, they managed to convince all the knuckleheads to think that fundamentalists are all one and the same.

You say clinton did nothing, but what you dont say is where he should have started.

GW BUSHED used the name OSAMA BIN LADEN over and over before the war in IRAQ began, yet he FAILED in that mission. Neither HE or any other right wing kook ever mentions this name any longer.

The ultimate phoney boogieman. Congratulations, you bought it hook, line and sinker.

You took out your flag and waved it like most americans did when BUSHED declared war on TERROR, unfortunately, you remain in the 21% percentile who still thinks this was a legitimate excuse for war.

The cat is out of the bag, OSAMA BIN LADEN was a nothing.

Bushed couldnt even bring himself to mention him in his farewell speech. NOT ONE TIME.

Maybe he forgot about him, or maybe it was all baloney in the first place. Who knows. What is known, is the war in IRAQ is coming to an end. Hopefully, their people will forgive our nation for the damage, death and destruction weve caused them.

I for one hope they do. I also hope someday, some inteligent people find evidence to prosecute BUSH, CHENEY and anyone connected to war crimes.

I have no respect for GW BUSHED and never will, I am an american.:dead:
 
Top