History will say that we misunderestimated George W Bush

[dude1394]

Good piece from the telegraph. Saved for posterity and to drive liberals mad.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m.../22/do2201.xml

History will say that we misunderestimated George W Bush

By Andrew Roberts
Last Updated: 11:01pm BST 21/06/2008

As he leaves the White House at the end of his second term, the President has a poll rating of only 23 per cent, and is widely disliked and even despised. His foreign policy has been judged a failure, especially in view of the long, painful, costly war that he declared, which is still not over.

He doesn't get on with his own party's presidential candidate, who is clearly distancing himself, and had lost many of his closest friends and staff to scandals and forced resignations. The New Republic, a hugely influential political magazine, writes that his historical reputation will be as bad as that of President Harding, the disastrous president of the Great Depression.

I am writing, of course, about Harry S Truman, generally regarded today as one of the greatest of all the 43 presidents, and the man who set the United States on the course that ended decades later in the defeat of Communism.

If the West wins the modern counterpart of that struggle, the War Against Terror, historians will look back in amazement at the present unpopularity of George W Bush, and marvel at it quite as much as we now marvel at the 67 per cent disapproval rates for Truman throughout 1952.

Presidents are seldom remembered for more than one or two things; the rest slip away into a haze of historical amnesia. With Kennedy it was the Bay of Pigs and his own assassination, with Johnson the Great Society and Vietnam, with Nixon it was opening up China and the Watergate scandal, and so on.
advertisement

George W Bush will be remembered for his responses to 9/11 in Afghanistan and Iraq, but since neither of those conflicts has yet ended in victory or defeat, it is far too early categorically to assume - as left-wingers, anti-war campaigners and almost all media commentators already do - that his historical reputation will be permanently down in the doldrums next to poor old Warren Harding's.

I suspect that historians of the future will instead see Bush's decision to insist upon a "surge" of reinforcements being sent into Iraq, combined with a complete change of anti-insurgency tactics as configured by General Petraeus, as the moment when the conflict was turned around there, in the West's favour.

No one - least of all Bush himself - denies that mistakes were made in the early days after the (unexpectedly early) fall of Baghdad, and historians will quite rightly examine them. But once the decades have put the stirring events of those years into their proper historical context, four great facts will emerge that will place Bush in a far better light than he currently enjoys.

The overthrow and execution of a foul tyrant, Saddam Hussein; the liberation of the Afghan people from the Taliban; the smashing of the terrorist networks of al-Qa'eda in that country and elsewhere and, finally, the protection of the American people from any further atrocities on US soil since 9/11, is a legacy of which to be proud.

While of course every individual death is a tragedy to the bereaved families, these great achievements have been won at a cost in human life a fraction the size of any past world-historical struggle of this magnitude.

The number of American troops killed and wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan is equivalent to the losses they endured - for a nation only a little over half the size in the mid-Forties - capturing a single island from the Japanese in the Pacific War.

British losses of 103 killed over seven years in Afghanistan bears comparison to a quiet weekend on the Western Front in the Great War, or the numbers the Army loses in traffic accidents in peacetime. History can lend a wider overall perspective to what are nonetheless, of course, immeasurably sad events.

History will also shine an unforgiving light on those ludicrous conspiracy theories that claim that the Iraq War was fought for any other reason than to implement the 14 UN resolutions that Saddam that had been flouting for 13 years.

The CIA and MI6 believed, like almost every other intelligence agency in the world, that Saddam had WMD, and the "Harmony" documents seized and translated since the fall of his regime make it abundantly clear that he was also supporting almost every anti-Western terrorist organisation imaginable.

Historians will appreciate how any War Against Terror that allowed Saddam to remain in place would have been an absurd travesty.

When the rise of al-Qa'eda is considered by historians like Philip Bobbitt and William Shawcross, it will be President Clinton's repeated refusal to act effectively in the 1990s, rather than President Bush's tough response after 9/11, that will be held up as culpable.

Judging by the rise in the value of the Iraqi dinar, the huge drop in the number of Iraqi deaths in the insurgency, the number of provinces now cleansed of al-Qa'eda, and the level of arms confiscations by the Iraqi Army in Sadr City, the new American "clear and hold" tactics have succeeded far better than the cynics ever thought possible even 12 months ago.

Give Iraq five, ten or twenty years, and Bush's decision to undertake the surge - courageously taken in the face of all bien pensant and "expert" opinion on both sides of the Atlantic - will rank alongside some of Harry Truman's great decisions of 1945-53.

If that happens, the time will come when George W Bush will be able to say what Lord Salisbury called the four cruelest yet sweetest words in the English language: "I told you so."

[Janett_Reno]

Grasping for straws dude.

[AxdemxO]

.................................................

[dude1394]

As predicteded....their heads are exploding. We'll come back to this post in about twenty years or so.

[Janett_Reno]

Also we can't tell how much oil we have in the usa because most of the dipsticks are in the middle east under no bid contracts, milking the tax payers out of ever red cent they can, as they break away from Cheney and Haliburton and hiding in the Cayman Islands.

Oh what an adn and you say Scott is unloyal and what do you call people that refuse to pay taxes, won't cover their employees to harmful positions they put them in, take no bid contracts for favors, and billions just vanish from thin air and they have no account.

Scott could be holding the cards to faith and values.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Janett_Reno

Oh what an adn and you say Scott is unloyal and what do you call people that refuse to pay taxes, won't cover their employees to harmful positions they put them in, take no bid contracts for favors, and billions just vanish from thin air and they have no account..

I call them people who want unlimited immigration.

[Janett_Reno]

I call them neocons.

[u2sarajevo]

I know this is off topic but I see the term "neocon" thrown around alot on message boards. From what I have gathered I certainly fall within the wide definition of a "neocon"..... I guess......

But what I wanted to know is this... is there such thing as a "neolib"? Or is the "neocon" title reserved to try and twist a screw in the sides of those that hold conservative beliefs?

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by u2sarajevo

...is the "neocon" title reserved to try and twist a screw in the sides of those that hold conservative beliefs?

Quite the opposite, actually. It's meant to highlight the *differences* between pure conservatives of old and the new "conservatives" of today. In other words, "conservative" these days doesn't mean what it used to.

It used to mean small government, small realm of influence in personal lives, and strong yet hesitant use of military force in foreign affairs. It doesn't mean that anymore. Nowadays, the "conservative" label seems to be something akin to dictating morals as you see fit, employing government to help you reach your agenda, and deploying your military wherever and whenever it seems to help.

The term "neocon" came about because the nature of "conservatives" changed. As for "neolibs," you will have to ask yourself if such a distinction is necessary or useful.

[u2sarajevo]

Oh well.... that's a different definition than I have been given. Apparently I am not a neocon.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by u2sarajevo

Oh well.... that's a different definition than I have been given. Apparently I am not a neocon.

The major distinction is that neocons are hawkish and also agressive when it comes to their ideology. The old conservatives believed very much in military might, but they were quite reluctant to use it. Neocons seem to thirst to use it. The old conservatives had very prominent beliefs about morals and the like, but they didn't see government as the way to promote them. The neocons see government as their whip.

In a perhaps ironical turn of events, neocons are just like liberals when it comes to social elements. Use the government to advance your agenda.

[Janett_Reno]

Originally Posted by u2sarajevo

I know this is off topic but I see the term "neocon" thrown around alot on message boards. From what I have gathered I certainly fall within the wide definition of a "neocon"..... I guess......

But what I wanted to know is this... is there such thing as a "neolib"? Or is the "neocon" title reserved to try and twist a screw in the sides of those that hold conservative beliefs?

In all fairness, some have said some Democrats are neocons. Libberman could be put in there. You need to research and see what they want and what they think is the most important as they will do anything for the cause. Even W's dad tried and tried to get him to not pick certain ones in his adm.

The economy is not a concern for this adm because they are looking at a global market. They want a global usa and tie in Mexico, USA and Canada. Even some say Bill was in with the Bush's on this. It is a reason they do not want border build up down on the Mexico/USA line. The middle east is a big deal for the neocons and not just Iraq but Iran.

Alot of countries are trying to put themself in position to global dominate at any cost. I read a book once and it was a banker but forget his name and it was probably witten in the 40's or 50's but it goes on to tell who controls the banks and oil can control the people and control or have a huge influence at the top in the world. One of Hitlers downfall was his war machine ran out of oil. Another he attacked Russia and was fighting on to many fronts and it would have been scarry having him run Europe. Thank goodness he made mistakes and the allies made him pay.

China could not get there and like McCain did, if you can't beat them, join them. China could not compete in the system that was being played. If they wanted control on what was said and done in the world, they had to rise above and control the dollar, banks, and oil. Another way is to buy companies in the countries that have always dominated and control the workers and buy land in these countries.

You know the kind of labor China uses and it is wrong and it is hard to compete with people that do not pay the employees. Go to your nearest train tracks and watch the trains come in, no matter where you live and look at all the boxcars comming down the track that says China. That are goods comming in here and we pay for and in return, we sell them hardly nothing.

They are in position to control our dollar, building up huge money supplies, buying our companies, buying our land, going all out and hoarding up oil. Buying as much oil as they can get. They copy everything from Ray Ban sunglasses to vehicles and even vitamins and meds and push them across for more money and no matter if things meet fda standards or our approval, they still push the product across and we pay it.

They found out you can't control a world or population by force and military. You must control the minds, the money, banks, oil, and products people need and want.

I love my country and want to live under our laws and our freedoms. I want a strong usa with borders. Jobs and healthcare and i do not care to live under Mexico/USA/Canada law but USA law. I do not want to work for a Chineese or Mexican company. I do not want to go to the middle east for a job. I think the American people are as smart as anyone if they are given a chance and we can compete with anyone. I do not like our country being sold out to China and others. Some have told me Ron Paul talks of this and maybe i need to listen to him more.

Neocons have a different agenda than a republican or democrat. I do not think Clinton was apart of the Bush's and the neocons but some say they are.

[Janett_Reno]

chumdawg is right. This is why alot of republicans are and have broke away from this adm and some are dishearted that they stood by as this happened but are standing up for their country now. Guys like Warner, Hagel and Greenspan and even Colin Powell. They use powers for the wrong thing. To better their agenda.

[Flacolaco]

I'm voting for W a third time.

[rabbitproof]

Good lines in the sand, Chum. The traditional conservative makes a lot of sense and maps back to the core beliefs of our founders. The new interpretation is just an abortion.

[dude1394]

Actually what I thought was that neo-cons also originally came from liberals who broke away from pacifism and promoted a strong military posture to many issues of the day.

Wikipedia has a pretty long article about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

"New" conservatives initially approached this view from the political left. The forerunners of neoconservatism were often liberals or socialists who strongly supported the Allied cause in World War II, and who were influenced by the Great Depression-era ideas of the New Deal, trade unionism, and Trotskyism, particularly those who followed the political ideas of Max Shachtman. A number of future neoconservatives, such as Jeane Kirkpatrick, were Shachtmanites in their youth; some were later involved with Social Democrats USA.[citation needed]

In general I don't think it has much to do with traditional conservative issues (economic, socially) but more foreign policy related.

Dubya showed little if any neo-conservative leanings, until 9/11 occurred. He was against aggressive military use (certainly was against nation-building). But as he said, things changed after 9/11 for dubya.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

I'm voting for W a third time.

Wish I could, he's worlds above the yahoo's we have running this time.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by dude1394

In general I don't think it has much to do with traditional conservative issues (economic, socially) but more foreign policy related.

I would agree with this in full. The big thing about neocon's is to be hawkish and/or to wield the Big Stick. But the question is, why should this mindset be attached to the "conservative" label? The answer is that it was a matter of convenience given the present political landscape. There was simply no other place where they would fit.

Dubya showed little if any neo-conservative leanings, until 9/11 occurred. He was against aggressive military use (certainly was against nation-building). But as he said, things changed after 9/11 for dubya.

In keeping with what I said above...Bush wasn't a "neocon" when he ran in 2000. Rather, he was a good honest-to-God conservative Republican. We thought he might be Reagan incarnate. It's understandable that 9/11 influenced his decisions on the use of military force...but what is not understandable is the rest of what he did as President. He let us Reagan Republicans down. He governed like a Democrat, and that's not what we expected.

[Dirkadirkastan]

http://www.babylontoday.com/national_debt_clock.htm

Yay Bush!

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I would agree with this in full. The big thing about neocon's is to be hawkish and/or to wield the Big Stick. But the question is, why should this mindset be attached to the "conservative" label? The answer is that it was a matter of convenience given the present political landscape. There was simply no other place where they would fit.

I think it's attached to the conservative label because there aren't many scoop jackson democrats around anymore.

In keeping with what I said above...Bush wasn't a "neocon" when he ran in 2000. Rather, he was a good honest-to-God conservative Republican. We thought he might be Reagan incarnate. It's understandable that 9/11 influenced his decisions on the use of military force...but what is not understandable is the rest of what he did as President. He let us Reagan Republicans down. He governed like a Democrat, and that's not what we expected.

I can't completely seperate what dubya did/did not do because of 9/11. In general I don't think he was a radical small republican ever, he believe that guvment has some places. 9/11 did so much more damage to our economy, that if he wasn't willing to spend some federal dollars I'm not sure what the economy would have done. He only had what, 8 months or so before we were attacked??

First thing he did was properly cut taxes, try to get an energy policy in place, made the right call on stem-cells... I can't really recall what else was going on.

But it's difficult to seperate dubya from wot.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

http://www.babylontoday.com/national_debt_clock.htm

Yay Bush!

Immediate and Short Term Direct Impacts

The September 11 attacks inflicted casualties and material damages on a far greater scale than any other terrorist aggression in recent history. Lower Manhattan lost approximately 30 percent of its office space and a number of businesses ceased to exist. Close to 200,000 jobs were destroyed or relocated out of New York City, at least temporarily. The destruction of physical assets was estimated in the national accounts to amount to $14 billion for private businesses, $1.5 billion for state and local government enterprises and $0.7 billion for federal enterprises. Rescue, cleanup and related costs have been estimated to amount to at least $11 billion for a total direct cost of $27.2 billion.
Immediate and Short Term Indirect Impacts

Immediately after the attacks, leading forecast services sharply revised downward their projections of economic activity. The consensus forecast for U.S. real GDP growth was instantly downgraded by 0.5 percentage points for 2001 and 1.2 percentage points for 2002. The implied projected cumulative loss in national income through the end of 2003 amounted to 5 percentage points of annual GDP, or half a trillion dollars.

With production disrupted in some areas (airlines) and consumers increasingly cautious, real GDP shrank in the third quarter of 2001. But in the fourth quarter, demand held up better than initially feared, and GDP increased. However, private sector fixed investment registered a steep decline, and inventories were slashed. Offsetting these forces, however, were household consumption, helped by falling energy prices, and government spending. Defense spending in particular grew by about 9.25% in real terms in the fourth quarter, at a seasonally adjusted annual rate.

Some sectors or firms actually witnessed an increase in demand, notably in the area of security and information technology. Still, while overall demand proved fairly resilient, a number of sectors were hit hard, with declining output and profits continuing into the mid-term.

Yay Clinton.

[chumdawg]

Dubya kept us safe during his tenure, that is for sure. But did he use a crane to kill a fly?

He grew government in many, many ways...and not just related to 9/11. That's why fiscal conservatives are looking for change.

But the sad thing is, they aren't getting it from either candidate. What are the Republicans thinking in this election? They are basically throwing a Democrat out there, albeit a hawkish one. What can the usual constituents glom onto? It's an interesting race the Reps are running. They are trying to sieze the center, when doing so would have lost the last two elections. They aren't going to get the turnout from the Karl Rove voters. They are toast, man. Toast.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Dubya kept us safe during his tenure, that is for sure. But did he use a crane to kill a fly?

He grew government in many, many ways...and not just related to 9/11. That's why fiscal conservatives are looking for change.

But the sad thing is, they aren't getting it from either candidate. What are the Republicans thinking in this election? They are basically throwing a Democrat out there, albeit a hawkish one. What can the usual constituents glom onto? It's an interesting race the Reps are running. They are trying to sieze the center, when doing so would have lost the last two elections. They aren't going to get the turnout from the Karl Rove voters. They are toast, man. Toast.

Maybe...we'll see...but you'll still owe me 20.

I have a hard time with it as well, but not as hard as my more hard-core conservative brethren. I firmly believe that no politician will ever balance the budget, until some sort of across-the-board cuts are enacted. It's not in their best interests. Even now when McCain opposes pork in Ohio, he gets blasted for it. I'm sure Janet will come back and tell me how hard-hearted he is all the while showing me a budget clock.

Obama's only plans that I've seen are tax hikes, and spending hikes. So it's the lesser of two evils, the party in general will spend less than the dems and certainly won't do something insane like nationalize refineries or nationalize the health industry.

But folks are getting pretty dependent on the guvment, it's probably going to take a tremendous budget crisis before folks will vote someone in that really cuts the budget, conservative purists just don't have the numbers.

[Dirkadirkastan]

Blaming everything bad that has happened the past seven years on 9/11, and using the event to justify any and all government activity is exactly what got Giuliani kicked out of the race pronto.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

Blaming everything bad that has happened the past seven years on 9/11, and using the event to justify any and all government activity is exactly what got Giuliani kicked out of the race pronto.

Ha! That wasn't even Rudy's stance. What killed Rudy was starting too late and organizing too poorly. He'd have been the Republican nominee, if he had the wherewithal (he didn't).

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

Blaming everything bad that has happened the past seven years on 9/11, and using the event to justify any and all government activity is exactly what got Giuliani kicked out of the race pronto.

If you assume (as this historian) is that the iraqi war saved 50million and brought down the cesspool that the middle-east has been for decades.....

then what's the next problem?
- can't be social security ponzi scheme-- that one he's been trying to solve.
- can't be the oil prices -- he's been trying to get an energy plan that didn't include pixie dust for years.
- budget deficit -- I'll give ya'.
- low taxes and booming economy -- good...
- decline of the dollar...some say tomato some say tomatoe....

[mcsluggo]

wow. and people accuse economists of making heroic assumptions....

[ShaggyDirk]

yikes!

[wmbwinn]

History will say that GW Bush was a lot more effective in dealing with N. Korea than Bill Clinton was... (and Libya)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080627/...koreas_nuclear

[mcsluggo]

Sorry but that is a hillarious statement.

Bush (and his supporters on this site) six years ago were walking bow legged in the street with their cowboy hats pulled low over their eyes muttering about the appeasement of the North Koreans during the Clinton Administration... and then 2008 engangement with the Koreans almost exactly mirrors the 1999 strategies/achievements and... Bush pwns North Korea!

Note that I am not particularly criticizing the admins recent N. Korea Policy, there is no good way to deal with that regime.... but to crow over it as some huge achievement vis the very similar Clinton era policy is a steaming load of something that doesn't smell as nice as daisies.

[dalmations202]

History will show Bush to be just like JFK, or Reagan or Clinton or Nixon.......some will love, some will hate.

It all depends on which side you were on at the time.

[mcsluggo]

yep. Indubiably.

I am sure there were plenty who loved Warren Harding, and we KNOW there were plenty that hated honest Abe... history books have fairly consistant rankings between the two of them.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

yep. Indubiably.

I am sure there were plenty who loved Warren Harding, and we KNOW there were plenty that hated honest Abe... history books have fairly consistant rankings between the two of them.

Ah yes, but history is written by those in control at the time --- and sometimes re-written later.

[92bDad]

I just wonder...is it best and are we ready to let this country go down the drain?

Let the left win...stick Obama in the White House and let he and his leftwing folks have the power.

Their decisions will ruin America and we can then strike another, yet stronger political revolution and shift control back to Conservatives in about 8-16 years.

My only fear, is how far will the Left destroy this nation?

Reagan was one of the best Presidents, while I also believe that our current President is one of the best and I agree with the above article, that in time his decisions will prove to be some of a great leader!!!

I will miss having a President I trust and believe in.

[mcsluggo]

so tell me, who would need to take control for historians to start favoring Harding over Lincoln ?

(I am guesing whover they are, they live in Texas! )

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

so tell me, who would need to take control for historians to start favoring Harding over Lincoln ?

(I am guesing whover they are, they live in Texas! )

Unknown,

Was Stalin the greatest leader ever of Russia -- or the greatest mass murderer in the world?

Was Hitler a great leader, or a mass murderer?

Was Jesus "the son of God", or just a good teacher in his day?

[ShaggyDirk]

Since we are throwing out random questions to Unknown, here is mine..

Will the right hand of God almighty toss a thunderbolt to vanquish this thread?

[rabbitproof]

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

Interesting flag...because...

stem cells -- he was right.
global warming -- he was right. we won't be able to socialize our economies enough to deal with this, it will have to come through technology, as it should.
afghanistan -- he was right.
judicial appointments -- he was right
social security -- he was right.
minimum wage -- he was right
no child left behind -- definitely right, only thing better would be vouchers.
faith based initiatives -- must be right, barack hussein obama just came out for 'em, even more so. Wonder how that will sit with the secularites?
no more attacks after 9/11 -- he was right.
iraq -- I believe he will also be shown to be right about this as well.
iran -- certainly right, but not strong enough probably.
north korea - he was right
libaya -- he was right
energy policy -- definitely right
nuclear proliferation??? -- definitely right again, libya, iraq, n.korea all getting rid of weapons or programs.
where's the fisa bill -- again obviously right, since the dems support it.


The rest of the it, halliburton, abu gharab, PLAME??? good grief, is just bds working overtime. You should put che gevara on there while you are at it.

[rabbitproof]

What is 'right'?

77% of America is ready to move on from 'mistakes made' though.