Will history be kind to George Bush?

Question

Will history be kind to George Bush?

Answer 1

All's well that ends well, so if by chance Iraq turns out pretty well in the future, then yeah, he might be remembered well.  

But the way things are going, I doubt it.

Answer 2

they say "whoever wins the war gets to write history" so i think it depends on if the next pres. cleans up the mess in iraq. if so they will consider bush a leader ahead of his time (as pathetic as that sounds) otherwise he be looked at as a L.B. Johnson type president.  

Answer 3

Nah. I watched a video online of him touring the whitehouse and he has a bust of Winston Churchill on one of the side tables in the oval office. He said that they had a lot in common... being wartime leaders and all.

Although, GW my man, Winny was voted into power to stop a war, you started a fresh one of your own.

Plus, war on terror? What sort of objective is that!?! It's just a licence to plunder and pillage.

Sorry, off point, no "The Bush" will not be remembered fondly.

Answer 4

Quite possibly.  After all, everyone was dismissing Truman as a disaster and now he's very highly regarded.

Still, if Clinton missed the rise of Islamic terrorism, Bush has allowed his so called War of Terror to distract him from the far more important resurgence of Russia.

Answer 5

no i don't think so...I think he's pure evil as we know it. :P

Answer 6

People despised during their term in office are usually despised after they leave it.

Answer 7

His mistakes will be forgotten in time and he'll be as important as Milliard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce, and Andrew Johnson.  

Answer 8

Unquestionably - he focused on the priorities most important to the nation and the world.  

Answer 9

I think he will have his place in history, but not a good place, certainly not in the opinions of the vast majority of the world who are not Americans.  His father is not looked upon kindly either.

Most Americans look at democracy as an American export.  This is not so, and it falls to us to question why you think we want US-style democracy anyway.  The British Westminster system is more equitable, more democratic and more acountable.

Answer 10

not if the historians take the time to report the truth.

Answer 11

Absolutely NOT.  He is our worst president in at least one hundred years, if not of all time.

The idea that "he has brought democracy to the Middle East" is a pathetically laughable delusion.  NO ARAB COUNTRY HAS EVER, EVER, EVER been able to manage a democracy, and Iraq will not either, if we ever leave, though he has gone far toward bankrupting the US in the attempt.  Not that he was going in there to do that to start with anyway.  His administration has spent FIFTY PER CENT more than the government has taken in, which has caused the value of the dollar to nosedive, and is THE reason all prices are much higher than when he took office.  There is more demand in the market for gas from India and China, but his Iraq war has taken Iraqi production out of the world market and we now have to pay for it with his devalued dollars.

A Euro was worth about one dollar when he took office.  Its worth about $1.50 now, reflecting the one-third loss in value of the dollar due to his irresponsibility.

Conservative estimates are that we have spent 1.5 TRILLION dollars on the Iraq war - there were twenty million Iraqis - you do the math, but that works out to $75,000.00 we've lavished on each and every man, woman and child in Iraq to "bring them democracy".  This borders on insanity.

He has no respect for our Constitution, which his oath of office requires him to "support, protect and defend".  Mindless jingoism is reflected in the "Patriot Act" which will one day be held unconstitutional, as it clearly is.

"Preemptive war" was outlawed, mostly at US insistence, after WWII.  He discarded all wise examples from the past and could be considered himself a war criminal for his actions.  I would not be surprised if he is eventually indicted by an international tribunal, and it would be hard to defend his case if he were.

He was determined to invade Iraq, and was willing to lie, distort facts, ignore contrary reports, and cook up an incident if need be, just like Hitler did when he invaded Poland in 1939.

I am deeply ashamed that my country now has a policy which allows torture.

His administration is the one which missed intelligence warnings which might have prevented 9/11.  The same incompetent, uncaring jackasses who couldnt get a drink of water to Katrina survivors.

I could go on for quite a while, but its too depressing.  Whoever takes office is going to have a lot to do to try to undo as much of the damage as possible, but our action will be severely restricted, due to his having come very, very near to already bankrupting us.  Your greatgrandchildren will still be paying off the tab.

The US used to be able to lead the world by example.

Answer 12

Yea, he actually did something in his term compare to most president in our past.

He brought democracy to the Middle East and fought Terrorism, something Clinton and other president before him fail to do..

Answer 13

No. Look at Richard Nixon. History isn't kind to him. Bush Jr. has a lower approval rating than Nixon. That says a lot.

Answer 14

I don't think so. He has had a very bad presidency, and more time isn't going to change that.

Answer 15

It's possible. He is one of the most unpopular presidents but he has accomplished many feats in the middle east.

Answer 16

I hope it will be right and remember him as a dangerous fool

Answer 17

Probably after everyone stops whining about gas and food prices. And that'll probably be a while considering how stupid people are. But I think George does deserve some credit. It seems that he works really hard.

Answer 18

he brout democracy to the middel east buhaha

1-there only in Iraq in the middel east

2-have you been to the middel east no you have not its full of  corroption killing etc. (apart from jordan and turkey)

3-all the goverments the USA made are falling (Iraq musaharat)

4-so george bush will be seen as the man who tried to complite what his fater chode not