http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20090114/EDIT01/901140314/1019/EDIT

 

Then again, a substantial portion of the electorate has written him off for the past eight years. Many simply refused to acknowledge him as "their" president after his controversial 2000 victory over Al Gore. To many, he is the worst president in memory, the embodiment of evil and stupidity. He has the lowest poll ratings of any president who hasn't resigned in disgrace. The nation has been bogged down in war. The economy is in the dump. America's future itself seems to be in doubt. Everybody knows history will judge Bush an awful president, right?

 

Well ... At the risk of being pummeled, let me advance a slightly contrarian view: History will treat Bush more kindly than present-day pundits and polls. He may even have a long-term chance for greatness - not in spite of his albatross, Iraq, but because of it.

 

Yes, great. And I've got somebody covering my left flank on that one. Liberal columnist Richard Cohen, no Bush acolyte he, argued in 2004 that "indispensability," a quality that figures such as Washington, Lincoln and FDR displayed, determines a president's greatness.

Divining the future is a futile exercise.

Divining the future is a futile exercise.

 

But it's fun when I am bored and nothing else to do while the kids are practicing the trombone, drums and flute.

This situation reminds me a lot of Truman. His approval rating was in the twenties when he left office. Thank you History Channel.

But it's fun when I am bored and nothing else to do while the kids are practicing the trombone, drums and flute.

 

I'm sorry, I didn't mean that badly, I just cut and pasted a line from the article. I find the vanquishing terrorism comment interesting, it will be Bush policies for that that will be looked at 50 years hence.

I don't see the Bush Presidency ever being lauded as great, even if Iraq stabilizes as a pro-American country. While that situation would be desirable, the idea of a pro-American democracy in the Middle East was secondary to his reasoning of it being a terrorist state and imminent threat, which has been thoroughly discredited. With that said, I think a situation could arise where his Presidency is seen in a much more flattering light:

• The Obama Presidency would have to be a complete disaster.
  
• A generation or more would have to pass, i.e. the younger generation who have the highest concentration of vitriol for Bush would have to pass.
  
• The opaqueness of the Bush Presidency would have to dissolve and its records thoroughly examined (and those records would have to reveal extremely favorfable information that the public was not previously privy to).
  
• Iraq would have to turn out favorably.

Outside of that situation, I imagine his legacy will remain quite poor.

I thought Bush did a fine job for the first six years, the last two years were bad, but overall, he still did a great job. I think he will get the blame for everything that happens in the next 10 years, then after that everyone will realize that he's not a bad guy and maybe even give him some credit for the seven years that he kept America safe from a terrorist attack.

I still find the he kept us safe thing overplayed, since the largest terrorist attack in our history took place while he was president.

I still find the he kept us safe thing overplayed, since the largest terrorist attack in our history took place while he was president.

 

That's a croc! That attack was very early in his presidency and his predecessor had information which would have nabbed Bin Laden for a few years and did nothing. That attack was already in the making before he was ever elected.

 

The fact is that more attacks were promised by Bin Laden and have not come to pass. That is the one thing I have to give W credit for. Like him or not, that is a fact.

I still find the he kept us safe thing overplayed, since the largest terrorist attack in our history took place while he was president.

 

Terriosts could attack us at any moment now. Would you be willing to say the same thing about Obama not keeping us safe even though he can't really help it?

I thought Bush did a fine job for the first six years, the last two years were bad, but overall, he still did a great job. I think he will get the blame for everything that happens in the next 10 years, then after that everyone will realize that he's not a bad guy and maybe even give him some credit for the seven years that he kept America safe from a terrorist attack.

 

:thumb:

Seems like the Presidents that we think were the worst while they were in office end up getting treated a little more kindly as the years go by. By the same token, the Presidents that we think were the best - not so much.

 

Lesson: Practically nobody is as great or as horrible as we think.

 

That being said, it will be a shock to me if GWB goes down as a "great" president, at least in my lifetime.

I still find the he kept us safe thing overplayed, since the largest terrorist attack in our history took place while he was president.

 

While I appreciate your right to have an opinion, this is a very unfair opinion. I wouldn't blame any president for not keeping us safe unless they ignored information that included an inevitable attack. One thing Bush was not, scared to enforce our will if he felt our interests were under attack or exposed to potential attack.

Bush was certainly not great, but if you consider the circumstances he faced, he probably was not as bad as many would like to think. He definately made a few poor decisions (particularly the WMD in Iraq) that will shape his legacy, but its hard to believe that anyone would have been able to react effectively in the face of 9/11.

I still find the he kept us safe thing overplayed, since the largest terrorist attack in our history took place while he was president.

Not only is it overplayed it is simply wrong. Every American death in the Iraq is a price that we pay for Bush. It really doesn't matter to me that it is "over there" they are still our people and they aren't exactly safe.