I’m not sure what the OP is getting at . . . should I think less of GHWB as President because he didn’t do a good job of teaching his son how to not be a crappy President? If anything, that’s an indictment of his parenting, not his presidency.
If anything, I’d say GHWB goes up in my esteem a little bit just by being not nearly as bad a President as his son. But that effect shouldn’t be limited to just Bush Sr. I mean, Clinton can also say “Hey, for all my faults, I did better than the next guy.”
I’ve said before on these boards and I still think GHWB’s decision to let Saddam stay in power at the end of the Gulf War was a huge blunder. If GHWB was as masterful at foreign policy as he claims and as his backers assert, he (or his minion, Sec. of State Baker) would’ve found a way to get rid of Saddam, rather than have him hanging fire for the US post 1992. That bit about “Well, the UN mandate wouldn’t let us do anything to Saddam” ignores the fact that the UN was essentially following GHWB’s lead. Saddam should’ve been tried for war crimes in 1992 after the war. Letting him stay in power was asking for trouble down the road. IMHO. YMMV.
I also agree with Second Stone’s analysis posted above.
Certainly he could have. I would definitely believe that he could have done a significantly better job of it than his son. But for what purpose should he have done so?
GHWB had a lot of experience playing around with dictators (e.g. in South America), and one thing he probably learned is that toppling one dictator just puts in a new one after a lot of civil unrest and bloodshed throughout that nation. So you’re not really accomplishing anything if you go any further than just to blow up most of their military capability. And if you do go further, then you’ve got a whole country that you have to occupy and run for probably several decades if you want to actually fix and modernize it–the whole time of which you’re going to be increasing the level of America-leveled hate in that region and possibly start some real wars which effect the people back home.
Since Reagan ,the repubs have been seriously dismantling regulation and pushing for the elite to have more power and control over the economy and the unwashed lowly citizens. Bush 1 was a CIA meddle into any country type. Bush 2 is an example of the republican power gathering,warmongers at its worst. Both Bushies are fine examples of how people can be convinced to vote against their own interests .