Could Bush even write something indirect or dishonest if Cheney held that gun to his face?
Admit that he was a puppet of the Far Right, and that he had no real power while in office. But only if it’s true.
I understand that Bush has a pretty good reputation in Africa. That shouldn’t be easily dismissed.
Hear, hear. I would stand up and clap.
Sadly, the thing that will make W look good is if the country goes down the crapper over the next few years. Especially if we have more terrorist attacks.
Seppuku
Most of the folks on this board hate W and everything he stands for, probably starting with the disputed 2000 election. I like to take a more objective view.
You ask why Bush doesn’t get credit for keeping America safe? That probably depends on your view of the world… in my job, as an exec for a Gov contractor, I work with DHS and DOD (Northcom, the part that protects the US) and see all the programs they run that do exactly that. Some are out in the open, like TSA, some are very classified, including parts that work with the IC. Some are pure inside baseball, like the ACE program at CBP - if you don’t work in that space, you likely have never even heard of that program, although it costs 100’s of millions of dollars. Same thing goes for certain programs/efforts from the Coasties, USSS, FLETC, ICE… it’s a hidden world, mostly. All Americans know is that he (and now, Obama’s admin) have kept us safe, even if some of it may be due to luck (the Christmas Day underwear bomber comes to mind).
Many would also suggest that his adventures in the mid-East have kept the US safe by playing the away game, forcing the enemies of the country (‘evil-doers’, as he would probably say) to play defense. You can agree or disagree, but it’s hardly unreasonable to make that argument. Other efforts might include the short-lived TIA, warrantless wiretapping, the ***bi-partisan ***PATRIOT act ( a favorite bugaboo of the lefties on this board, but it passed 98-1 in the Senate).
Most people I talk to do not blame Bush for 9/11; at least, no more than they’d blame Clinton for not recognizing that we were in a war already, probably since before Khobar Towers or the first WTC bombing. And trust me, they are hardly all conservatives or GOP operatives or Tea Partiers (or if you’re 12 yrs old, Tea Baggers).
You betcha.
As to his book, I might read it but I won’t pay a dime for it.
I don’t hate GeeDub. Hating what he stands for, what might that be? As for taking a more objective view, we wait with bated breath.
That isn’t luck, that is the good sense to choose maroons for enemies.
Many would make that argument? Really? “Adventures”, however, is an aptly chosen word, commendable if accidental irony. We had a bunch of enemies, then we had a whole bunch more enemies. We have offered our enemies a perfectly marvelous selling point, that we are at war with Islam. To his credit, GeeDub denied that. That’s nice.
The Dems in the Senate were a bunch of craven, sniveling wimps stampeded over the cliff by the alpha lemming. But “lefties”? Not hardly. Who voted against? Fiengold. Hardly a raging Trotskyist.
Talk to more people. Better still, listen.
And just on the aside, yeah, maybe he could be polished, Beavis Maxim notwithstanding. Managed to make Jimmy Carter into an abject failure, but you ask them why and they don’t really know. Usu sally something about putting on a sweater and suggesting that maybe we shouldn’t be squandering so much money on energy.
Boy, good thing we didn’t listen, huh? Close shave, there.
If the HIV/AIDS rate in Africa drops precipitously in the next few years.
I do not see anything happening in the Middle East that can sugarcoat his decisions. We went there because of WMDs and none were found. That will forever be his folly.
OK. So your story is that Bush chose militant Islam as his enemy, not the other way around. Got it. :rolleyes:
Maybe it’s **you ** who should listen a bit more, and not just in the echo chambers you’ve apparently been spending your time in? No offense.
And as for the word choice of ‘adventures’, you’d probably be surprised to know that I’m against both OEF and OIF. I think both are incredibly high-difficulty dives and not worth the cost in both blood and bucks. Of course, now that we’re there, we need to play to win (and/or quickly GTFO). I suppose that puts me somewhere in the Colin Powell/Obama camp.
The difference between us, is I understand why he thought they had WMD. So did pretty much all of your boys and girls. He (or his advisors) felt that, after 9/11, he had no choice but to take that threat off the table.
Hey, I’m not exactly a teabagger and I don’t blame Bush for 9/11. Heck, the idea alone sees pretty conspiracy-theoryish to me - I prefer the notion that there were some foreign terrorists to blame, somewhere in the mix.
Everything that happened after 9/11, on the other hand, is entirely on Bush’s plate. And I don’t think he’ll ever live it down.
I suppose that if things in Iraq and Afghanistan work out perfectly, and they become stable, full fledged members of the international community, prosperous and so on, that this will mend his reputation at some point down the line. It will depend on how historians 20 or 30 (or a hundred) years down the line view his actions in the context of our times and through the filter and lens of their own times.
For instance, if, at some point in the future, there is a full scale war between the US/West and the ME/Muslim community (say a nuclear weapon is used against a major western city), then attitudes and view points might change, and Bush might be seen in a different light.
Consider how attitudes have changed about past presidents from the previous century, or the one before. Presidents who were popular during their times in many cases become unpopular later, and are viewed by historians in a more critical light, or vice versa. It COULD happen with Bush as well.
As for mending his reputation in the short or medium term, I’d say that is flat out impossible, except by those who already (or still I guess) think well of him…a very distinct minority, even among conservatives/right wingers, let alone the general population.
-XT
I think his best bet is the Nixon strategy: First, die. Second, wait for someone even worse to get elected. Nixon had to wait for the election of George W, so it can take a while, but I’m pretty sure it’ll happen eventually.
I personally have some trouble envisioning a well-intentioned president being worse than Bush. You’d probably have to be outright malevolent in order to pull that off.
You know what, I take that back, president Palin would be worse, while still attempting to do what she thinks is the right thing.
Ontopic: Bush would have to admit he was utterly out of his depth and did the best he could with his limited abilities. That, and spending the rest of his life trying to make up for his failures might be a start.
That’s an interesting link you got there. Just as much content and insight as the post it’s sitting in.
Congress believed that Saddam had WMDs, because the President told them that the evidence was unassailable, and they couldn’t believe that any President would have the gall to lie quite that blatantly.
So, what was that unassailable evidence again?
As per usual, your stellar and crystal clear analysis adds so much to the conversation. :rolleyes:
You see, that’s called a cite. You should try it some time, instead of the off-target, hamhanded attacks and innuendo. So, unless you are about to debate the veracity of the quotes, you really aren’t actually adding much, are you? If you *are *doubting the truthfulness, perhaps you could cough up some proof?
What… president Clinton? Those quotes were mostly from 1998 and 1999. Everyone thought he had them. So did the Israeli, British, French, NATO… how long would you like me to go on?
Click the link silly-billy. This would be the second time I recall of you offering a cite that was a broken link. I’m sure you’re not doing this on purpose… but it would behoove you to learn how to use your tools properly.