Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

- Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)

- - Bush's legacy (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/94323-bushs-legacy.html)

How will history treat George W. Bush?

Option A:

Rallied the nation after 9/11.
Brought democracy to Iraq and the middle east.
Rebuilt New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.

Option B:

Didn't pay attention and allowed the greatest terror attack in US history to occur.
Immersed the US in a futile war based on misinformation.
Fumbled the ball after Katrina and let down the people of New Orleans.

No option C. Get off the fence!

;)

history is written by the people who own the presses. they all got very big tax cuts, their children don't have to sign up to afford college and they have second and third homes in al qaida-free areas above sea level. and the news channel ratings always shoot up when there's a war on!

if it were going to be option b then they'd have done more to debunk the lies about iraq at the time. has the downing street memo got the mainstream press it deserves yet?

Option A should just say "Conservative"
Option B should just say "Liberal"

Quote:

Option A should just say "Conservative"
Option B should just say "Liberal"

Really, my vote goes to Option C: Depends who's doing the remembering.

That's true, there are conservative historians and there are liberal historians and when it comes to someone as polarizing as President Bush, they will clearly have differing viewpoints on his legacy.
But i think the general consensus will be point #1 from Option A and points #2 and 3 from Option B.

Well when you look at historians, the best example are those who view Wilson.

He's viewed for pulling America into a first rate world power, setting down our role as a leader of the world, and being a shrewd diplomat.

Then again others view him as being one of the most racist presidents (his fav. movie was Birth of a Nation), as well as dragging us into a costly and unneeded war.

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

Option A should just say "Conservative"
Option B should just say "Liberal"

I agree. This "poll" is limited to the views of the extreme right and left. No real options here for those who don't see everything in extreme black and white.

Interesting that all three elements of both A a B are probably true.

-bear

Ignoring for the time being the political charge on the question itself, I note the following:

Quote:

Originally Posted by highthief

Option A:

Rallied the nation after 9/11.

Without question, that happened.

Quote:

Brought democracy to Iraq and the middle east.

Hasn't happened yet (I don't count one election. Saddam had elections. Until there's a constitution, there's no democracy)

Quote:

Rebuilt New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.

Hasn't happened yet, almost certainly won't happen on Bush's watch, even if it progresses at the fastest possible pace. Probably at least one, maybe two presidents from now before NOLA is a functional city again.

Quote:

Option B:

Didn't pay attention and allowed the greatest terror attack in US history to occur.

That happened, if you believe the people whose opinion that is.

Quote:

Immersed the US in a futile war based on misinformation.

Happened if ditto.

Quote:

Fumbled the ball after Katrina and let down the people of New Orleans.

Happened if ditto.

So--again, setting aside whether you believe about the futility and the misinformation and the rallying and the democracy--I can't help but notice that two out of three items on List A are speculations on things that might occur in the future. All three items on list B are interpretations of things that have already happened.

I conclude that, of these two, list B is the more likely.

Quote:

Originally Posted by j8ear

Interesting that all three elements of both A a B are probably true.

-bear

I agree to some extent. My opinion of what we'll see.....

In 50 years he'll be seen as one who reacted with great passion and did what he thought best over the WTC crisis.

But he'll also be seen as having corrupt advisors around and not having thought out how to truly handle Iraq. But if there is Democracy there he'll be seen as having great vision..... if not.... he'll be viewed as a fool.

He'll be seen as divisive and polarizing but that the nation had been headed that way anyway.

He'll be seen as truly believing in what he did was best for the country and yet he ignored the majority.

He'll be seen as slow to do anything about Katrina and that it was the pinnacle and greatest example of how divided the country has become.

But was the slow reaction his fault? Possibly, he inherited a divided nation and did nothing but polarize it more, however, we as a people should have all rallied together and not worried about what our leaders did.

The biggest problem in the US today is we look to how government reacts and we follow, instead of what made us great to begin with...... the people leading and reacting and government following.

We are still the greatest nation in the world with the most caring and understanding peoples..... yet we have been so torn by our own passions we are scared to do and therefore we look to the government and press to tell us how to react.

Example:

WW2 we did what we had to do as a nation and while FDR may have been a great leader we as a nation banded together, looked out for 1 another and made sure we overcame.....

Today, WTC or Katrina happens, people are split, don't know how to react, go about their lives and are told how to feel, what to think of it and how to react.

Bush is not the problem, he is the symptom and the most visible so it is easy to attack him.... the true problem lies in each and everyone of us, as we have become lazy, passionless and more follower because we look for the easy ways out.........than hands on, strong and full of desire to be better and wanting to lead and never follow.

Today, America is without identity, we are in essence in a mid-life crisis and we'll work our way out of it..... and be bigger and stronger once we do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbob

There is an interesting article about the US press on the BCC website today:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4214516.stm

Quote:

As President Bush scurries back to the Gulf Coast, it is clear that this is the greatest challenge to politics-as-usual in America since the fall of Richard Nixon in the 1970s.

Then as now, good reporting lies at the heart of what is changing.

But unlike Watergate, "Katrinagate" was public service journalism ruthlessly exposing the truth on a live and continuous basis.

Instead of secretive "Deep Throat" meetings in car-parks, cameras captured the immediate reality of what was happening at the New Orleans Convention Center, making a mockery of the stalling and excuses being put forward by those in power.

Amidst the horror, American broadcast journalism just might have grown its spine back, thanks to Katrina.

National politics reporters and anchors here come largely from the same race and class as the people they are supposed to be holding to account.

They live in the same suburbs, go to the same parties, and they are in debt to the same huge business interests.

Giant corporations own the networks, and Washington politicians rely on them and their executives to fund their re-election campaigns across the 50 states.

It is a perfect recipe for a timid and self-censoring journalistic culture that is no match for the masterfully aggressive spin-surgeons of the Bush administration.

'Lies or ignorance'

But last week the complacency stopped, and the moral indignation against inadequate government began to flow, from slick anchors who spend most of their time glued to desks in New York and Washington.

The most spectacular example came last Friday night on Fox News, the cable network that has become the darling of the Republican heartland.

This highly successful Murdoch-owned station sets itself up in opposition to the "mainstream liberal media elite".

But with the sick and the dying forced to sit in their own excrement behind him in New Orleans, its early-evening anchor Shepard Smith declared civil war against the studio-driven notion that the biggest problem was still stopping the looters.

On other networks like NBC, CNN and ABC it was the authority figures, who are so used to an easy ride at press conferences, that felt the full force of reporters finally determined to ditch the deference.

As the heads of the Homeland Security department and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (Fema) appeared for network interviews, their defensive remarks about where aid was arriving to, and when, were exposed immediately as either downright lies or breath-taking ignorance.

And you did not need a degree in journalism to know it either. Just watching TV for the previous few hours would have sufficed.

Iraq concern

When the back-slapping president told the Fema boss on Friday morning that he was doing "a heck of a job" and spent most of his first live news conference in the stricken area praising all the politicians and chiefs who had failed so clearly, it beggared belief.

The president looked affronted when a reporter covering his Mississippi walkabout had the temerity to suggest that having a third of the National Guard from the affected states on duty in Iraq might be a factor.

It is something I suspect he is going to have to get used to from now on: the list of follow-up questions is too long to ignore or bury.

And it is not only on TV and radio where the gloves have come off.

The most artful supporter of the administration on the staff of the New York Times, columnist David Brooks, has also had enough.

He and others are calling the debacle the "anti 9-11": "The first rule of the social fabric - that in times of crisis you protect the vulnerable - was trampled," he wrote on Sunday.

"Leaving the poor in New Orleans was the moral equivalent of leaving the injured on the battlefield."

Media emboldened

It is way too early to tell whether this really will become "Katrinagate" for President Bush, but how he and his huge retinue of politically-appointed bureaucrats react in the weeks ahead will be decisive.

Government has been thrown into disrepute, and many Americans have realised, for the first time, that the collapsed, rotten flood defences of New Orleans are a symbol of failed infrastructure across the nation.

Blaming the state and city officials, as the president is already trying to do over Katrina, will not wash.

Beyond the immediate challenge of re-housing the evacuees and getting 200,000-plus children into new schools, there will have to be a Katrina Commission, that a newly-emboldened media will scrutinise obsessively.

The dithering and incompetence that will be exposed will not spare the commander-in-chief, or the sunny, faith-based propaganda that he was still spouting as he left New Orleans airport last Friday, saying it was all going to turn out fine.

People were still trapped, hungry and dying on his watch, less than a mile away.

Black America will not forget the government failures, nor will the Gulf Coast region.

Tens of thousands of voters whose lives have been so devastated will cast their mid-term ballots in Texas next year - the president's adopted home state.

The final word belongs to the historic newspaper at the centre of the hurricane - The New Orleans Times-Picayune. At the weekend, this now-homeless institution published an open letter: "We're angry, Mr President, and we'll be angry long after our beloved city and surrounding parishes have been pumped dry.

"Our people deserved rescuing. Many who could have been, were not. That's to the government's shame."

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

The biggest problem in the US today is we look to how government reacts and we follow, instead of what made us great to begin with...... the people leading and reacting and government following.

We are still the greatest nation in the world with the most caring and understanding peoples..... yet we have been so torn by our own passions we are scared to do and therefore we look to the government and press to tell us how to react.

That is very, very, very true. Almost painfully true.

We have met the enemy, and it is us.

Quote:

Hasn't happened yet (I don't count one election. Saddam had elections. Until there's a constitution, there's no democracy)

Kinda rough dont you tink? People werent killed along with their whole family if they didnt vote the right way in the past election..

In light of that BBC article I found it very interesting that the main stories on CNN (that I saw) all seemed to put emphasis on how quickly many responded to the rescue efforts.

Smelled like there was some serious spinning happening somewhere to try and change the direction of the stories surrounding this event.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Kinda rough dont you tink? People werent killed along with their whole family if they didnt vote the right way in the past election..

I'm not comparing anything. I'm just saying, one election does not a democracy make.

I think the New Orleans/Mississippi disasters will take a lot of heat off Bush as the War President. Anyone heard from Cindy Sheehan lately? Gone. Next story. 15 minutes expired.

He's morphed into Bush, the Foreign War President/Domestic Catastrophe Rebuilder.

Its all perception, i agree with solomon he is new big daddy cry on my shoulder bush, who loves mountain bikes and ranches

oops i voted b but really meant a

Quote:

Originally Posted by Salomon

I think the New Orleans/Mississippi disasters will take a lot of heat off Bush as the War President. Anyone heard from Cindy Sheehan lately? Gone. Next story. 15 minutes expired.

Yes, today she's whining that she was "shoved forcefully" or some other such nonsense.

Quote:

oops i voted b but really meant a

Sounds like how Gore didnt get elected lol

Regarding this poll, Ratbastid nailed it.

Thinking more generally, our war with Iraq will not end well. "Create a Democracy" is not and cannot be an achievable military goal. (As opposed to "kill people until one of them was Saddam Hussein, then accept somebody's surrender and leave.") Democracy may be an especially poor fit for Iraq due to its non-democratic history, Suni/Shiite/Kurd divisions, and shortage of small farmers and/or small businessmen.

In the end, history judges presidents based on military actions, the economy, and scandals. I like President Bush and I'm a conservative. Personally I'm content that he tried to do what was right and didn't earn the condemnation of those who fought beside him. Yet I believe he will be rememberd by history as failing to find a clean end to the war with Iraq that his father began.

From www.dictionary.com:

de·moc·ra·cy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-mkr-s)
n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected
representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a
community.

I don't know, has Iraq achieved these yet? at the very least, to be fair, you could credit George Bush with: "Removed brutal dictator of Iraq". I think that is a fair and reasonable assessment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Until there's a constitution, there's no democracy.

kk - this may be just nit-picking, but a constitution is not required for democracy. There are several democratic nations, New Zealand included, which do not have a constitution... What is required is democratic intent within the laws, and within the law-makers...

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelFarker

In the end, history judges presidents based on military actions, the economy, and scandals. I like President Bush and I'm a conservative. Personally I'm content that he tried to do what was right and didn't earn the condemnation of those who fought beside him. Yet I believe he will be rememberd by history as failing to find a clean end to the war with Iraq that his father began.

Very true. Scandals tend to be used when there were no accomplishments:

Link

Quote:

China Names Condom for Bill Clinton

A Chinese company is honoring ex-president Bill Clinton by naming a new line of condoms after him - along with a companion line of condoms that will be named after his ex-girlfriend, Monica Lewinsky.

Reports Britain's Sky News: The Guangzhou Haokian Bio-science company has registered their names as trademarks for the contraceptives.

The condoms will display Chinese spellings: Kelitun and Laiwensiji.

A 12-pack of Clintons is expected to cost $5.00, with Lewinskys selling at a discounted price of just over $3.00.

The manufacturer's general manager, Liu Wenhua, told Sky News that naming his condoms for Clinton was perfectly legal, explaining that "trademarks of two foreign surnames and can't be seen as a violation of rights."

Clinton is the only U.S. president to be honored with his own condom brand line.
New York Sen. Hillary Clinton was unavailable to comment on her husband's latest achievement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by highthief

Dude your canadian.

Oh Yeah forgot something. Why is it so hard for people to blame the actual city of New Orleans for the blunders. If the levies had not broken the City would be very much better off. The money had been there for a long time but the mayor or whoever refused to fix it. Bush's fault. Not so much.
Okay now for 911 okay we could have prevented that as much as we could have prevented Cuba from becoming communist or reagen from getting shot.
Do you have any proof to support the claims you make. if you are even making claims.
futile war maybe but this is our country and i for one would give my life it is defense to protect all of your freedom to protect this forum and your right to share your opinions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbob

history is written by the people who own the presses.

If that's the case, he'll be compared favorably with Hitler.

Quote:

Originally Posted by florida0214

???

Why do some folks think this poll equates to criticism? I believe, as the president who has most polarized the nation to one side or the other (at least in recent memory) he's going to get remembered, as most notable presidents do, as either a great hero or a incompetent. I make no forecast on which it will be.

Honestly, other people's children...