Originally posted by RRconservative
George Bush is probably the most hated President since......Abraham Lincoln.

Future historians will rank Bush highly.

Bush's popularity will rise after he leaves office. Mainly because of the mess McCain or Obama will create when they take office. We will be wishing we had a leader like Bush back in the White House.

So you believe bush is a good president because he has not created a mess like what you believe future presidents are going to create? or has he actually done anything favorable in your opinion?

-rrr

As an American Iranian who served in the US Marines and graduated Stanford Univ I would have to disagree and say I do not believe he is the worst by a long shot.

I would say Carter is ten times worse for what he did or happened under his watch with my fathers country of Iran. People were happy, lived free without the Mula's heavy handed punishment and oppression.

I have cousins that have seen people; woman buried up to their necks and stoned to death by the police/military for doing what...cheating...huh...

I for one along with many Iranians would like to see the Mula's and the current Iranian govt dies a slow and painful death for they have done to the beautiful country named Iran. If it takes balls from the likes of Bush...SO BE IT...

the freedom and deomocracy (laugh) is declining weekly in Iran...

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
Well historically speaking… History has not been written yet.

I know it’s easy to pull out the “Lied and Died” rhetoric but I think some perspective is needed. The US was attacked and choices had to be made to ensure the safety of the Country and the continued prosperity of the Country. The fact is, the economy rolled along pretty good for the last 7 years and there have been no attacks on our home soil since then.

The economy is has cycles, this is a down turn, there will be an upturn eventually.

I think in 10 or 20 years you can talk in terms of “historically”, and I think in that time there may be a different take on the Bush Presidency. Just like Truman and just as it took about 15 years for everyone to say how great Reagan was.

Sorry for the anonymous post, but I’m just a lurker; maybe I’ll join eventually.

i suggest you
1- study these economic cycles and the reasons for them, as well as look up what it means to keep 'rolling along.'
2- see if history has decided that reagan was great, or if fox news and the neo-cons have just decided to start saying it over and over.

there is still nothing great about reagan, he was at the head of much of the policy changes that led to the neo-cons ability to oppress even more. you hear how great he was all the time now, from the rich corporate trolls that benefited from him and want more. that is not history, that is a few people with loud voices.

i highly doubt history will look at george bush any more favorably but if the current MSM situation continues, i am sure we will hear about how great he was from o'really jr. and hannity jr.

He's cut taxes in half since Clinton's time frame. Obama will change that right quick if he takes office. We're all looking at another 10-20% out of every check we earn.

Not to mention, when I ask people why he's a bad president no one has a solid answer that can be supported by facts they know. Mostly just media sheep following the leader.

A few points:

1. A president's worth cannot be accurately measured until at least 20 years after his term.

2. In the modern world, the current sitting president is always an idiot and "the worst ever". Every president in my short life's memory, from Ford forward, has worn the dunce cap. (Which makes me wanna puke when people wax nostalgia about how "great" Reagan was; in office he was hated every bit as Bush).

Then again there was a time when the current sitting president was the greatest ever; how else did Teddy Roosevelt get a place on Rushmore?

While there certainly appears to be much Bush could have done & should do different/better, history will be the judge.

Originally posted by theability

---

I am so sorry to disagree with you, but I htink explicitly in my post I included a reason not to like bush, the fact that he has violated the the constitution,

As did FDR, Roosevelt, Lincoln, and in smaller measure Kennedy. DO you hate them?

stolen from American's,

????
Huh?

Killed inocent people,

Whom? And when? Because Kennedy, Truman, FDR, and Lincoln all had massive US military casualities under thier watch.

taken away from the future of our great nation and killed relations with alot of major nations that we previosuly had good standing with.

Debatable. But then so did Reagan, while Carter was loved overseas, go figure.

Before you try corawling all that don't Like GWB into one group of BASHERS try reading what people actually post.

Post soemthing that makes any logical sense and I will. But based on your response, I would honestly say your reaction is far more emotional than rational.

Yes I do. Most ly because I feel that he has done the best he could under difficult circumstance. I know many won't agree. But Clinton did the best he could also as well as every other President before him.

The President is not a dictator. It is a system of check and balances. Congress and the Court have procedures and the power to put the President in check if either one believes that the president is overstepping his boundaries.

Congress or the courts lack of desire to do so should not be blamed on Bush. I am amazed that so many people blame Bush for doing things that Congress authorized or legislated. Yet they seldom blame Congress.

I don't agree when people blame Bush for the world hating us when in reality those that hate us also have an agenda. All countries want things and would more than be willing to hate us in order to get what they want or need.

Bush has done bad things and good things and only time will tell how good or how bad he was. Personally i see him right in the middle.

LOL, good one Grafilthy.

Originally posted by Grafilthy

One started a preemptive unilateral war without provocation causing the deaths of over 4,000 young Americans....

Dude...

Did you forget about highjacked airplanes Smashing into buildings? Killing thousand of Americans...

Or does that not qualify as a just cause for war?

Bush introcuded the term, Islamo-Facist to the American population...
Clinton introcuced the term, Blow-Job, to the American population...

As a young child, my parents had to explain to me what was going on...
Introducing the Blow Job to MILLIONS of children... Causeing UNTOLD phycological damage... and producing an entire generation of sex feinds...

I think Bush would have been an ok president if it were not for 9-11

He was on the path to balance the budget even after the dot-com crash, he handled the spy plane thing with China well, he hlped start the no-child left behind thing.

But after 9-11, it went down hill. His post 9-11 ratings were just a long slow dive into the sewers.

Afghanistan was handled well at first but Iraq was horrible. The reasoning to go into Iraq didn't make sense seeing that Osama and Saddam were enemies and any wmd terrorist attack would have brought nuclear fire on Iraq.

Bush wasn't a leader in his own cabinet and listened to much to Rumsfield. Bush has a problem with not being able to fire the bad apples of his team and he payed for it. The Iraq war should have been fought hard in the start, but instead the military avoided all the cities and did not secure the weapons.

Bush had a poor handle on the budget, even with Republican majorities, he couldn't handle McCain and the gang of 8 at the time screwing up his issues, he poorly chose Harriet Myers and pissed off a lot of his base. Bush couldn't handle a fierce and united Democrat minority and hostile media among other things.

Then there was the bad luck. Hurricane Katrina came along. Bush took all the blame even though the state and local government was probably more at fault. Next the housing bubble started to collapse.

Then there was the finisher. The congress was taking over by Democrats because of Bush's mistakes. Amazingly, the democrats were not able to de-fund the war but instead a the surge started up. Too bad for Bush, he won't get credit for the surge he opposed.

Maybe history will judge him different. He did fight 2 wars with a minimal loss of lives in comparison with other conflicts. He will be credited, eventually, I think, with helping the economy out of the dot-com and 9-11 crash.

In all, Bush should have picked better advisers and should have fired the existing inept ones.

If Bush stuck to his guts instead of Rumsfield's , I think he would have been a much better President.




This should have been for Rumsfield and Cheney. I hope I won't get in trouble.

As a person, he seems like a likeable fellow. As for the job he does, I know he has stresses and pressures that none of us would ever have. He is too much of a big government politician. He leans too far to the left for me.