I love George Bush

[Monkeyleg]

The scant coverage given to GW's speech and other remarks in the last days of his presidency have caused me to think about the man and his time in office. While he's made some major mistakes, he's also changed the world forever, something that I think will take ten years for historians to sort through and get right.

He's had more vitriol and hate directed at him than even Ronald Reagan, yet he never shot back at the media or his detractors. He kept his cool and his dignity. The same cannot be said about Clinton, and there are signs that the same will not be said about Obama.

He's had a lot thrown at him the last eight years, perhaps more than any president since FDR. The WTC attacks, the mortgage meltdown, the financial markets meltdown, Katrina...all of these and more taken together are burdens that almost no other president has had to face en masse.

Barack Obama based his candidacy upon attacking Bush at every turn and for everything. Yet, when the time came to turn over power, Bush took every measure to make sure that the transition was smooth and expedient. I can't think of another president whose administration went to such lengths to pave the way for the incoming administration. He certainly didn't do this out of love for Obama, but for the sake of the country in difficult times.

That, I believe, is what has defined his presidency. Everything he has done, right or wrong, has been for the sake of the country. I've seen no signs of him doing things to enrich himself when he leaves office, or to stroke his ego. (The "war for oil" crowd and the Halliburton conspiracy theorists have been crazy all along).

I'm sure there will be many, many on this forum who will disagree with me, but give it ten years. Wait until the smoke has cleared and we can look back with objectivity. I have no doubt that George W Bush will be regarded as one of the most important and influential presidents in our country's history.

[MicroBalrog]

Please explain further. I would like to know what are these things that George Bush did that you think make him influential. Without that detail it's impossible for me to disagree OR agree with you on a rational basis.

[lone_gunman]

He's had more vitriol and hate directed at him than even Ronald Reagan, yet he never shot back at the media or his detractors. He kept his cool and his dignity.

I agree he has had a lot of vitriol and hate directed at him.  But I believe the reason he never shot back was not because he kept his cool and dignity.  I believe it was because his handlers knew he was such a poor speaker an uncharismatic, that anything he said would simply come out wrong and be used against him later.  It was smart not to attack, if the attack is inept.

He's had a lot thrown at him the last eight years, perhaps more than any president since FDR.

I believe that is patently false.  Lots of presidents since FDR had things at least equally important thrown at them.  For example, Harry Truman had to decide to use the nuclear bomb on Japan.  Kennedy had the Cuban Missile Crisis.  LBJ and Nixon had to deal with Viet Nam and a nation on the verge of social breakdown.

Bush took every measure to make sure that the transition was smooth and expedient.

I agree he has made the transition smooth.

Everything he has done, right or wrong, has been for the sake of the country.

The same could be said for many leaders, including people like Stalin, Ho Chi Min, and the Ayatollah Khomeni.

I have no doubt that George W Bush will be regarded as one of the most important and influential presidents in our country's history.

I agree.  But it won't be because of the Iraq War (which we have won, I believe), or our fight against Islamofascists.  It will be because of less discussed things he has done to our country, such as:
  -- Medicare Reform, which increased social spending more than any president since LBJ
  -- Increase in federal power and size of government through things like Patriot Act
  -- Campaign Finance Reform

The next generation of Americans will be inheriting an America with a larger more intrusive federal government with spending and taxation completely out of control, and Bush has done his part to create this.

[taurusowner]

I agree.  But it won't be because of the Iraq War (which we have won, I believe), or our fight against Islamofascists.  It will be because of less discussed things he has done to our country, such as:
  -- Medicare Reform, which increased social spending more than any president since LBJ
  -- Increase in federal power and size of government through things like Patriot Act
  -- Campaign Finance Reform

The next generation of Americans will be inheriting an America with a larger more intrusive federal government with spending and taxation completely out of control, and Bush has done his part to create this.

Unfortunately, I agree.  President Bush has done much a Reagan Conservative should scoff at. 

[grampster]

Sigh.....for an educated young man Micro, if you have to ask such a stupid question as you have, it really doesn't deserve an answer.

Well said, Dick!!  In addition to your comments I would add it was painful to listen to Obama's subtle belittling of President Bush in his innaugural address.  I think his address defined Obama further.

[MicroBalrog]

Sigh.....for an educated young man Micro, if you have to ask such a stupid question as you have, it really doesn't deserve an answer.

Obviously I am familiar with President Bush and his two terms in office. However, I cannot read the OP's mind, at least not at 15,000 miles away. I don't know which achievements he is referring to.

[lone_gunman]

His positive acheivement in my mind include:

Appointing Roberts and Alito
Apparent victory in Iraq

These are outweighed by his negative acheivements:

Campaign Finance Reform
Medicare Reform
Patriot Act
Increase in the size and intrusiveness of federal government
Federal socialization/bail out of our banking system

[MechAg94]

I have a lot of respect for GW as a person.  I think he has accomplished some good things, more than most would give him credit for.  I think he would have a better record in my view had he vetoed some of the crap Congress sent him. 

I do realize some of my defense of him is a reaction to the constant criticism and attacks since November 2000 which came from media, politicians, and others.  I always thought at a lot of it was pretty unfounded and simply petty. 


I guess I would also point out that I knew Bush wasn't as conservative as some seemed to think way before he was elected so I guess I wasn't expecting Reagan II.  He did a decent job as governor here and I guess he did a decent job as President.  Not great, but decent.

[RoadKingLarry]

Bush was not a "Conservative" but he was still far better than either of the two alternatives we were offered. I consider his biggest fault to be that he tried to out democrat the democrats. Most of the most distasteful things we got from his admin are little more than relabled democrat party positions.

[Balog]

I have a lot of respect for GW as a person.  I think he has accomplished some good things, more than most would give him credit for.  I think he would have a better record in my view had he vetoed some of the crap Congress sent him. 

I do realize some of my defense of him is a reaction to the constant criticism and attacks since November 2000 which came from media, politicians, and others.  I always thought at a lot of it was pretty unfounded and simply petty. 


I guess I would also point out that I knew Bush wasn't as conservative as some seemed to think way before he was elected so I guess I wasn't expecting Reagan II.  He did a decent job as governor here and I guess he did a decent job as President.  Not great, but decent.

This^^

I don't like the guy much, but the way the lefties hate him he can't be all bad.

That being said, I think we're going to greatly regret some of the things he did. Medicare obligations aren't going away, and Obama with the Patriot Act is a scary thought.

[makattak]

I have a lot of respect for GW as a person.  I think he has accomplished some good things, more than most would give him credit for.  I think he would have a better record in my view had he vetoed some of the crap Congress sent him. 

I do realize some of my defense of him is a reaction to the constant criticism and attacks since November 2000 which came from media, politicians, and others.  I always thought at a lot of it was pretty unfounded and simply petty. 


I guess I would also point out that I knew Bush wasn't as conservative as some seemed to think way before he was elected so I guess I wasn't expecting Reagan II.  He did a decent job as governor here and I guess he did a decent job as President.  Not great, but decent.

I am much the same. Perhaps I defend him more because of the large number of unfair and downright deceitful attacks made on him.

My biggest criticism is as Mech suggests: He tried to get along too much.

There's the irony. His opponents demonize him and attack him and his biggest fault is he did too much to try to get along with them.

(Edit: E.g. Medicare reform and school reforms care of Mr. Kennedy)

I'm all for compassionate conservatism. I just think the most compassionate thing the government can do is get out of the way.

Was he a perfect president? Not by a long shot.

Was he better than the alternatives? I'd say even than the viable republican alternatives.

In all, I'd say he's a good man and a good president. Far better than most from the 20th century. Definitely the best of the current century.

He saw the true threat to this country. He engaged it before it was an existential threat to the United States, and, indeed the West.

Unfortunately too many are blind to this threat and it may now be allowed to grow to the point that it will be such a threat.

[lone_gunman]

He saw the true threat to this country. He engaged it before it was an existential threat to the United States, and, indeed the West

Could you clarify this?  He saw the true threat to our country AFTER the September 11 attacks.  He engaged is AFTER it was a threat, not before.

[makattak]

Could you clarify this?  He saw the true threat to our country AFTER the September 11 attacks.  He engaged is AFTER it was a threat, not before.

Yes.

Were the September 11 attacks an existential threat to the United States?

[RevDisk]

I'm sure there will be many, many on this forum who will disagree with me, but give it ten years. Wait until the smoke has cleared and we can look back with objectivity. I have no doubt that George W Bush will be regarded as one of the most important and influential presidents in our country's history.

He will always be linked with Iraq, for good or ill, in the minds of the people.

Scholars will likely remember his expansions of Executive power.   Conservatives should remember his spending money like a drunken sailor.  I wish they'd hold to their principles over partison cheerleading, but I doubt it'll happen, ever.  Here, I am not criticizing Bush, I am criticizing Congress for refusing to rein in spending when they had the chance.   

[Perd Hapley]

His positive acheivement in my mind include:

Appointing Roberts and Alito
Apparent victory in Iraq

These are outweighed by his negative acheivements:

Campaign Finance Reform, etc.

While I do not excuse Bush for signing the CFR bill, it was not his achievement; it was not his baby.  Again, that doesn't excuse him for signing it, but it's not exactly his legacy, either.

[longeyes]

Just because the Left hates Bush doesn't mean we have to like him.  Their reasons for hating him are their own and seem to be based largely on Bush's "moralistic" inclinations.

Bush needed to do a few things when he took office: reverse the expansion of government, promote energy independence, stem illegal immigration.

He did none of that; in fact he made all of those problems worse.

He wasn't responsible by himself for the collapse of the financial sector, but he failed to step forward and stop the insanity. 

Roberts? Alito?  He wanted Harriet and Alberto, and only conservative pressure prevented at least one of them from sitting on SCOTUS.

The war?  He had to do something but whether his tactics were the best-chosen remains to be seen.  Color me skeptical.  I think the man has a blind spot when it comes to Saudi Arabia (just as he does with Mexico).  We have not touched the source, and as long as we don't "all this" will go on.

It's hard not to blame his administration for leading us to where we now find ourselves, in an Obama administration.  A lot of it has to do with Bush's being a "compassionate conservative."  Let's be honest: he was never that, what he was was and is a LIBERAL.

[lone_gunman]

Were the September 11 attacks an existential threat to the United States?

Yes, Bush sat and did nothing on the same information Clinton said and did nothing on.

[makattak]

Yes, Bush sat and did nothing on the same information Clinton said and did nothing on.

...the September 11 attacks represented an existential threat to the United States?

I didn't realize two buildings in New York and two in DC were that crucial to the country.

[lone_gunman]

I didn't realize two buildings in New York and two in DC were that crucial to the country.

Wow, do you also think the Peal Harbor attack was not important?

[makattak]

Wow, do you also think the Peal Harbor attack was not important?

I said nothing about the importance of the attacks. These were horrible acts of war on the country.

However, these attacks did not threaten the existence of the United States (hence, existential) We continued on with some disruption, but we were able to continue very much as before.

These attacks were a wake up call to a threat that was progressing towards a threat to the existence of the nation. Had we just treated this as a law enforcement matter and let any number of countries support these terrorists while pursuing weapons of mass destruction, we would eventually face an existential threat. We may still face that someday, but I would say that Bush has succeeded in forstalling it.

[MechAg94]

Okay, if someone nuked a major city in the US, that is still not technically an existential threat to the country.  The idea that we have to have a full blown invasion or threat of destruction that threatens the existence of the country before we do anything is a stupid idea.  That is not the standard by which we use military power and it never has been. 

The Barbary pirates were not an existential threat either and our Founding Fathers sent the Navy after them. 

[makattak]

Okay, if someone nuked a major city in the US, that is still not technically an existential threat to the country.  The idea that we have to have a full blown invasion or threat of destruction that threatens the existence of the country before we do anything is a stupid idea.  That is not the standard by which we use military power and it never has been. 

The Barbary pirates were not an existential threat either and our Founding Fathers sent the Navy after them. 

I didn't say we had to have an existential threat.

I said President Bush responded prior to it becoming an existential threat.

In this case, my model is Germany and how what became the Allies kept ignoring and appeasing until the problem WAS an existential threat.

A single nuke is also not an existential threat.

20 likely is. 5 might be. (Not that everyone will die, but our county will be completely changed.)

[seeker_two]

I'm sure there will be many, many on this forum who will disagree with me, but give it ten years. Wait until the smoke has cleared and we can look back with objectivity. I have no doubt that George W Bush will be regarded as one of the most important and influential presidents in our country's history.

I doubt it....at best, he'll be considered one of the moderately better ones during critical points in American history....like McKinley (Spanish-American War) or U.S. Grant (Indian Wars) or even John Adams (conflicts w/ Barbary pirates). But, I doubt history will grant him any degree of greatness.....

[Beagle]

While he's made some major mistakes, he's also changed the world forever...

At the risk of falling afoul of Godwin's law, so did Hitler. Changing the world forever isn't necessarily a good thing.

He's had a lot thrown at him the last eight years, perhaps more than any president since FDR. The WTC attacks, the mortgage meltdown, the financial markets meltdown, Katrina...all of these and more taken together are burdens that almost no other president has had to face en masse.

Perhaps. Yet it can be argued that he was either the cause of some of these issues or that his responses were disastrous. He responded to 9/11 by starting a war with the people who didn't do it, the mortgage meltdown was predictably caused by policies that he either supported or at best ignored, his response to the financial crises borders upon socialism, and Katrina... well, we all know about Katrina. History may indeed remember him for these things, but probably not in a flattering way.

Barack Obama based his candidacy upon attacking Bush at every turn and for everything. Yet, when the time came to turn over power, Bush took every measure to make sure that the transition was smooth and expedient. I can't think of another president whose administration went to such lengths to pave the way for the incoming administration. He certainly didn't do this out of love for Obama, but for the sake of the country in difficult times.

Granted. He has been extremely classy on that count. Now, how many past presidents can you recall that have been lauded for their behavior upon leaving office? Unless you are a real history buff, the answer is probably "none". It just doesn't seem to be something the historians pay attention to.

That, I believe, is what has defined his presidency. Everything he has done, right or wrong, has been for the sake of the country. I've seen no signs of him doing things to enrich himself when he leaves office, or to stroke his ego. (The "war for oil" crowd and the Halliburton conspiracy theorists have been crazy all along).

I'm sure there will be many, many on this forum who will disagree with me, but give it ten years. Wait until the smoke has cleared and we can look back with objectivity. I have no doubt that George W Bush will be regarded as one of the most important and influential presidents in our country's history.

Honestly, I believe that his presidency will be remembered as a time of big government conservatism. Whether it comes to be regarded as a paradigm shift or a foolish misstep will depend upon the Republican party's actions in the next few decades.

[Monkeyleg]

I don't feel tonight like responding to twenty different arguments.

Suffice it to say that what he's done in dealing with terrorism and reshaping the politics Middle East (if the Obama administration follows through) will be on a par with pacifying Europe and Japan. It's our last significant threat.

Like it or not, he's established a precedent regarding preemptive use of force in defense of our country. Given the nature of our enemies today, it's a precedent that's frightening, but necessary.

I guess I included Truman as part of the FDR administration, as the dropping of the bombs was an extension of FDR's plan.

Kennedy did have the Cuban crisis, which he could have handled better. Fortunately it came and went rather quickly, and without loss of life.

LBJ had Vietnam, but it was largely by his choosing, and much of the civil unrest was due to that choice. Ditto Nixon.

Bush didn't ask for the WTC, didn't ask for the mortgage or economic meltdown, or Katrina, or the other crises that came about on his watch. WTC and the economic problems were in the works for years or decades before he took office.

The notion that he or any other president could have prevented the WTC attacks is ludicrous, as is the notion that he was too stupid to respond to attacks on him. If I wanted to listen to that kind of drivel, I'd watch Chris Matthews instead of reading APS.

I remember posting on THR weeks after 9/11 that the flags waving from cars and trucks and the swell of support for Bush wouldn't last. This isn't the 1940's. Walmart is loved more than the flag.

As I said, wait ten or so years for the historians to sort out what has happened over the last eight years. I think many minds here may change by that time.