How should history honestly judge George W. Bush's presidency?

[Tasaio]

It should be noted, that those presidents considered "the greatest" today, were not always so popular in their time.

Abraham Lincoln was widely opposed by copperheads (anti-war activists).

JFK is labelled "disappointing" by many scholars, but is revered by the public.

Nixon was widely praised prior to Watergate, and one scholar said of him: "..so brilliant, but so morally lacking". Another commented that Nixon would get "full marks in history".

Reagan did not have the highest approval ratings in his time, but today is considered by the public and scholars alike to be one of the best. (Personally, I very strongly disagree.)

There are others, but let us now consider the current presidency of George W. Bush. He started off reviled by many on the left--for obvious reasons. After September 11, his approval rating shot to 90%--the higest in the history of polling.

After that, it steadily declined until it reached its current levels: low 30s to high 20s.

Suffice to say, he has become an unpopular president. But as I mentioned, this doesn't always mean that scholars will agree.

My question is, how do you think George W. Bush should be judged, honestly, by history?

If you think he has done a good job, despite his unpopularity, then feel free to do so. Don't be afraid to be honest.

And if you think he's been terrible, then likewise, please be honest.

[Tasaio]

Vote Terrible.

(I realize many Americans will disagree with me, and I acknowledge that I do not live in the US at this time. I may be wrong when citing facts--please correct me if I do. But I believe what I write to be true.)

I truly think this presidency is one the worst in history. After Sept. 11, America was widely sympathized with across the world. Even the Ayatollah of Iran condemned the attacks, and Iran held a vigil for those killed. Saddam Hussein originally implied that the attacks were deserved, but later expressed sympathy for innocent Americans killed the attacks.

Instead of uniting the world against Al Quaeda, and apprehending Osama bin Laden--as he should have--Bush turned his attention to Iraq. As a result of his failure to commit enough to Afganistan, Osama slipped through the US' fingers...again.

Iraq

Then there came Iraq. Whether or not the Bush Administration deliberately used false intelligence remains to be seen. Nevertheless, the administration admitted that the intelligence was flawed.

What's worse, they went in without UN approval. It should be noted that those at the UN voting against authority to invade cited skepticism with Colin Powell's presentation--and whether they truly were WMD factories. Those skeptics turned out to be right.

They did not find the WMDs they claimed were there. Despite this, they continue to occupy Iraq to this day. While it certainly can be argued that chaos would ensue in the US left Iraq, one must measure the benefits of staying. And one must measure how well the occupation is being carried out.

It seems clear that this administration has not done a good job on the occupation. Colin Powell admitted that they should have paid more attention to this side of the invasion.

Relations with Canada (my country)

The US has also not been a good ally to Canada. It would seem that the Bush administration was singularly unhelpful in solving the softwood lumber dispute. Add to that the various threats the US makes about Arctic sovereignty, music filesharing (which was decriminalized in 2003 in Canada), and potential legalization of marijuana (likely, when the Liberal party is reelected).

Domestic

Domestically...Bush is a joke. Perhaps the sagging economy speaks for itself.

He pushed through tax cuts for the upper tier of taxpayers, doubled the size of gov't, blocked stem cell research (several times), and provided a completely inadequate response to Katrina. He's given funding to faith-based progams, tried to ban same-sex marriage, and could not even pass his own immigration reform.

He has a clear problem communicating policies to the public--and no, I'm not talking about his inarticulate speech (something I sympathize with, actually). His presidency is very secretive, having given confused and, at times, contradictory explanations about why things are carried out. ("Hussein is an ally of bin Laden. There is a link.")

Conclusion

Despite their flaws, Clinton, Carter, Bush Sr., Reagan, and Ford all got more done than Bush Jr.. He's one of the least successful presidents, having failed domestically, internationally, and economically. Among the worst in history.

[JimOfferman]

America's economy has been neglected and I don't think that his war on terrorism has resulted in a decline in the number of terrorists...

So I would say one of the worst. Certainly the worst in my lifetime.

I don't actually question his desire to do good. I think he is quite an honest man at heart, but I do think he is a little misguided...

[Amadeus]

We can't answer the question. You'll have to give it at least another 5 or 10 years before we can tell. They were saying the same things about Reagan. If Iraq becomes a free democratic society and the economy bounces back into another long bull market, people will say he was great. We just don't know right now.

[Brutha]

Reagan did not have the highest approval ratings in his time, but today is considered by the public and scholars alike to be one of the best.

It depends on whether you are republican or democratic. Republicans like Reagan when democrats hate him.

You can't determine how history will judge something that isn't finished.
We don't know how the future will look like and how the war on terror plays out.

He pushed through tax cuts for the upper tier of taxpayers, doubled the size of gov't, blocked stem cell research (several times). He's given funding to faith-based progams, tried to ban same-sex marriage.

We don't know how people in the future will judge those decisions, because we don't know how their Zeitgeist looks like.

[Jennihul]

I voted terrible. My minor beef with him is that he is a terrible speaker and the "face" and "mouth" of America needs to project something, anything, other than a 'court jester' personna. He constantly appears as though he is barely able to control his laughter at some grande inside joke. Maybe he isn't pretending. Maybe the inside joke is that he actually made it to the oval office.

My main beefs with him are the utterly contemptable actions he has taken to wrest control away from the H.O.R. and Senate and onto himself, the overall stomping on the Constitution which is a massive slap in the face to anyone who has had ancestors fight and die protecting it, and the blatant pretending and lying about the Iraq war. The fear mongering, which Americans are particularly susceptible to, to further his personal/presidental gains.

Jennifer

[sheffy4]

Bush's presidency has given me great reason to doubt the continued "democracy" in the United States. I really want Obama to win the presidency, but knowing how the government just disregards the votes of American citizens, I am afraid that Hillary or worse, McCain, will be "elected."
Did anyone else hear about how the Bush family bought a ton of land in South America recently? I wouldn't doubt it if they hid there in voluntary exile after he leaves the White House.

The thing I am probably most angry about is the Iraq "war", like most people. America is so imperialist it's insane. They are not trying to build up the Iraqi democracy. They are just trying to get another American colony and keep this profitable war going on forever...arggg

[Brutha]

America is so imperialist it's insane.

Is that really something new? Isn't America basically imperialist since it broke the Monroe doctrine at the beginning of the 20th century?

I wouldn't doubt it if they hid there in voluntary exile after he leaves the White House.

I don't think that is a good idea for Bush. America is still the most safe place for him.

[sheffy4]

Brutha,
Imperialism isn't new... but it still pisses me off!

[Barcs]

Definitely one of the worst. If you actually look into all of the reasons given for going into Iraq, every single one of them is in someway fabricated. Look at all the horrible things that happened on his watch:

9/11 - He is responsible for one of the biggest security failures in US history, and he actually used it as a campaign slogan. This makes me sick, and I'm pretty confident AT THE VERY LEAST he had prior knowledge of the attacks.

Iraq - He got us into this war that probably won't end for another 10 years, all based on lies. He's practically instigated WW3 over there and now wants to invade Iran. If he does it will definitely be WW3 and it won't be pretty.

Illegal wiretapping... Katrina... Patriot Act...

I'm not sure what future historians will say, but if they do not ignore the facts, he will go down as one of the worst if not THE worst. Many historians today ignore many historical facts that would make a lot of our presidents look bad. For example FDR completely instigated Japan to attack and was warned about the attack by Australia I believe, but he completely ignored it. You aren't going to read that in any history book.

[VetTechJess]

I voted overall good presidency. That being said I have never met a politician whose policies I agree with 100%, and never will. However, I am a Republican, and I say I did vote for the man last presidential election. I am proud to say I did.

For One, president bush banned partial birth abortion. I am not christian, but I also have never believed in destroying innocent life.

He vetoed stem cell research funding. Everyone seems to think that stem cell research is the best thing since sliced bread. It isn't. There are two lives at stake with stem cell research: Human embryos and animals. All of this has to be tested on the most innocent of animal. I have read stories of researchers PURPOSEFULLY severing the spines of animals in order to test their stem cells on them. Recently, I read a story in the news where researchers had purposefully made some animals pancreatic cells not work anymore in order to test to see if their stem cells worked.

Its a practice that is barbaric, and shouldnt be marveled at when one species of just as innocent life (the animals) is sacrificed to try to advance another species.

Thats my take on it...

[Dan.Linehan]

War Crimes.

[Amadeus]

War Crimes? When have our men and women over in Iraq commited any war crimes? Bad decision and a waste of money it was, but there was no crime made. Saddam broke 12 UN resolutions, so we had every right to go over there, it just was not a good economic decision for us.

[Dan.Linehan]

There are lots of examples. Bush War Crimes is pretty comprehensive. Mother Earth is a good resource.

In fact, there is a whole commission on it.

[Dan.Linehan]

This is some of what Agent Orange has done to Vietnam. *warning: graphic photo sets*

Now imagine what birth defects will occur from our massive attacks in Iraq using using depleted uranium.

That's in addition to the genocide that already occurred there because of our occupation..

And that's all Bush Admin.

[coollikeme]

time will tell. When the war ends, that is when we will find out. How everything turns out. One good thing that may have happen is. North Korea might give up its Nuclear program. I think the war now has something to do with that.

[Dylan]

On the plus side, Bush should get credit for increasing funding for AIDS in Africa. I think he should also get credit for the fact that there have been no additional radical Islamic terrorist attacks in the U.S. since 9/11. He would have gotten the blame had there been more attacks, so I'm willing to give him credit for their absence.

Overall, however, I think Bush should go down as the great squanderer. He squandered a huge budget surplus. He squandered the goodwill of the world he enjoyed post-9/11. He squandered the moral authority of the U.S. by splitting hairs on torture and wiretapping. He squandered U.S. prestige by poor planning for a war of his choosing.

The worst thing: Bush made America uncool. That's inexcusable!

Still - if there is one thing I've learned from this site - Bush is not "out there" - he's part of us, part of me. To that, I say I'm sorry to the world. I'll try to do better with the next leader.

[Nikaia]

Saddam broke 12 UN resolutions, so we had every right to go over there, it just was not a good economic decision for us.

Yes, Saddam broke UN resolutions. Not US resolutions. Since when did the UN send us in as their proxy? As I recall, the UN was pretty strongly against Bush's invasion. So how can you claim we were justified by using Saddam's violation of UN resolutions as your talking point? It just doesn't work.

On the subject of The Royal Shrubbery - oh, how I despise that man's reign over this country. I can think of only a few ways, perhaps, that he could have turned the world from sympathy and support to disdain and contempt more solidly and rapidly than he did, while it would not have been hard at all to take that goodwill and put it to constructive use. But no, we had to go play cowboy, and look where it's gotten us. National surplus into massive national debt, economy falling down around our ears, restrictive theocratic policies sliding insidiously under the radar - government funding of religiously-based educational programs, anyone? - international dislike for our high-handed and imperialistic brattiness...how, exactly, CAN the man be remembered well in the history books?

And by the way, Reagan is not so universally fondly-remembered as some think.

[coollikeme]

organization that ever existed. We should take are tax money, that we spend on that useless organization, and help feed the hungry. UN means nothing. United States is smart enough not to listen to that corrupted organization. Nikaia I hope you are not basing your decisions on what the UN thinks. Bush knows that they are useless that is why they did what he did. Economy runs in cycles, yes we hit a down turn. Yes the war has something to do with that, but it is money well spent. If we don't have a country then I guess we don't have to worry about an economy. Every day Al Qaeda was treating to kill us, and have been trying to blow up are building for years before 9/11. What does it take for people to wake, up it is not fear mongering its a fact. Bush sees that and will go down in history as a great President.

[Nikaia]

Did I ever say I was basing my thoughts on what the UN thinks? All I said was, violation of UN resolutions does not automatically justify our invasion of a sovereign nation. If you take that to mean I agree with everything the UN does, you are sadly mistaken, and need to question your assumptions.

I think the UN is a great idea, in theory. I'm a little disappointed with how it's turning out in practice - certain nations having pretty much all the power and abusing it to high hell, to wit, the USA - but I stand by what I said. There may be all other reasons for why we should have and did go to war, but you cannot use the UN's resolutions as justification since we were not sent by the UN at all.

I'm amazed, though, that you can consider the war money well spent. We began the Shrub's reign with a national surplus for the first time in a very long while - and within a few years, it's turned into the biggest national debt in history. And what do we have to show for it? Dead soldiers. Dead Iraqis. A horribly destabilized region, and the threat of war with Iran, who is scarier than Iraq ever was. The true architects of 9/11 have still not been brought to justice. No WMDs were found, despite the promises. Shrub & Co. have been backpedaling for years, throwing out one excuse after another for why we should be there. We still have no end in sight, despite the optimistic "Victory Achieved!" BS as soon as we marched into Iraq.

I guess that fearmongering has lodged itself pretty solidly in your reality, so solidly as to be "fact", and for that I'm sorry.

[Brutha]

Yes the war has something to do with that, but it is money well spent. If we don't have a country then I guess we don't have to worry about an economy. Every day Al Qaeda was treating to kill us, and have been trying to blow up are building for years before 9/11.

The Iraq war has increased Al Qaeda's influence in Iraq.
Before the war you had a secular dictatorship in Iraq which was opposed by Al Qaeda.

Speding a third of the money on altanative Energy to remove the dependy of the Oil of the region (and reduce it's geopolitical significance) and spending another third on political good will projects (free newspapers, anti Aids campains, Sport stadions etc) and the last third on CIA operations in the region would have giving far more bang for the bug giving the goals of the war.