Bush's legacy?

I am not a big political watcher, All I have to say is that this was the first time I have been frightened by my own government.

History will not judge Bush kindly.

Who cares. The Knight in shining armor is going to save the world....NOT!!

Not to be disrespectful John, but every American should care. Obama has a tough row to hoe and it will be difficult to undo years of bad decisions by the former government. I don't think he'll save the world but I'll bet he'll give it his best shot.

Actually, he has provided something of value for future generations. A textbook example of how NOT to handle a civil defense crisis. That truly is of value.

52 million Americans disagreed with you.

Every President spends time "undoing" the things his administration thinks were wrong with the last one. BHO is no different, and should get no special treatment from the voters or the media if he's not up to the task.

I certainly hope he is. I have a lot invested in the Country, and don't wish to be blown off the planet by some radical group if our defenses are lowered.

As they shouldn't. He is a vile creature.

Good thing all our other elected officials have served us so effectively these past four years, or we'd be in a real pickle right now.

If we suffer another terrorist attack resulting in huge casualties with BO at the helm, some Americans might view George Bush differently. Hard to say. Of course, there will still be those who would firmly believe that Bush and Cheney actually launched the attack.

Al-Qaeda isn't protected by the Geneva Convention. Questionable at best regarding the Taliban but the terrorists in Al-Qaeda certainly aren't.

The view of some people seems to be that "No further attacks on US soil have occured so Bush has kept us safe and is justified in whatever he has done to accomplish that."

Well, I just can't accept that. "The end justifies the means" is a dangerous policy. It does as much to create new enemies has it does to punish old ones. Not to mention it creates PR fodder for the recruitment efforts of current enemies.

We were attacked. A response was called for. An effective response didn't have to include throwing basic human rights out the window.

What does this thread have to do with Obama? Let me rephrase that. This thread has nothing to do with Obama! No wonder he gets so much press. No matter what the subject, his name comes up!

As for Bush's legacy, as far as I'm concerned, it would have been how he led and unified the country after the 9-11 attacks. Unfortunately, that was diminished when he lied to get us into war. That is how I will remember him.

Depending on what happens in the next few years, which does have to do with BO, people might reflect on George Bush's presidency in a more or less favorable light than they do now. Of course, that's one of those IMO things.

Historically I haven't a clue. Ask someone who lived through Watergate what they remember most about Richard Nixon and maybe you'll get a different answer than from someone who has only learned about him in school.

So human rights were only thrown out the window under the Bush administration? Before then we were always all shiny in that regard? Or, is it simply the media we have to thank for enlightening us? It's an honest question.

Most radicals don't torture prisoners, they just cut off their heads like they did Daniel Pearl. I say torture is more acceptable, but that's just me.

I don't even know what to say to that...

I prefer, "Trained Chimp" over,"Vile Creature".

P.S. I don't mean to upset any Chimpanzees.

Now, now friends. If you disagree with the policies, actions and decisions of public figures, feel free to say so. HOWEVER; in this particular thread, the references to public figures is beginning to become unnecessarily demeaning and graphic.

The hero may be the most celebrated, but they who try their best and fall short are as worthy of the same respect.

I never said one way or another that torture is O.K.. I was merely pointing out that terrorists, like the cowards in al-Qaeda, aren't entitled to the same protections provided to lawful combatants that the Geneva convention provides. They don't meet the conditions to fulfill the criteria.

I'm all for treating people humanely, even if many of those being detained have no concept of humanity, but patting them on the butt and giving them milk and cookies isn't going to cause them to give information which may be useful. I can draw the line at causing bodily harm and I'm also well aware that physical harm can be done to the body by mental and emotional shock. How do you go about breaking their will to resist? BTW, that's not a rhetorical question.

I have to go with John McCain because he has been there, so if he thinks waterboarding is torture then I will agree. Loud music and the other stuff, no.
Having guys naked in a human pyramid, while demeaning I don't consider torture either.

By whatever means are available under the laws that civilized people have developed to distinguish themselves from barbarians.

For the love of humanity, can we *please* get past the erroneous belief that Bush "lied to get us into war"? Please? Disagree with the President's policies, be against the war, but let's not buy into the illusions (or delusions) of the misinformed.

Consider that if Bush actually lied, that means he was privy to information that no one else had. Please explain how he came by that information to the exclusion of everyone else. The US and the rest of the free world's intelligence was that there were, in fact, WMDs in Iraq. And many in government and the military are certain that WMDs did exist but were destroyed or moved out of the country.

Please note the date on the following column. How many of us are familiar with the info in this piece? The media have done a fine job of keeping up the "Bush lied-people died" insanity.

www.renewamerica.us/columns/vernon/060220

As far as the President's legacy, those who disliked him will, of course, pick out the isolated instances of wrongdoing by a few idiots at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo. Fine. After almost 8 years of vitriol, insults and pure hatred leveled at this man (samples of it on display in this thread) it's no surprise.

I know there are some here that still respect and even admire Bush. But I'm sorry.

I think it was a truly astonishing 8 years:

We suffered two recessions - this second one may turn out to be a depression. At this point, we'll be lucky if it's a recession.

As was pointed out, our response to the terrorist attack on New York was to attack a country that had nothing to do with it on false pretenses. Hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost as a result of the lies! Saddam Hussein was not responsible for 9/11 in any way. He was not a danger to the U.S. He did not have weapons of mass destruction. Bush rushed to war without giving diplomacy or weapons inspectors a chance. Later - administration officials blew the cover of a CIA employee whose husband told the truth, and, surprise, surprise, lied about their involvement. Bush took on tyranny and embraced torture. Again, as has already been pointed out, he fought a "war for freedom" by trampling on human rights.

Bush HAS exposed himself to war crimes charges! By his own admission, he authorized interrogation practices that are illegal under U.S. and International law. His administration at best looked the other way and at worse ordered prisoners at Guantanamo and Abu Gharaib to be tortured. NOTHING (IMO) has given more support than Bush's immorality. Our nation's reputation has been tainted/tarnished and (IMO) has encouraged islamic extremism.

Bush weakened our democracy by embracing a theory of dictatorship. OK - an imperial presidency. Working with a complacent Congress (plenty of dems responible too), Bush gutted the constitutional checks and balances that are supposed to keep any part of the government from growing too powerful or too corrupt. In the name of an endless war against "the enemy," he canceled our most fundamental rights of habeas corpus and the right to be free from unreasonable government spying.

Bush squandered the budge surplus. Tax cuts were the panacea that would cure all ills. Economy too strong? cut taxes. Economy too weak? Cut taxes. Stock market failing? Cut dividend taxes. Investment weak? Cut capital gains taxes. The tax cuts didn't make the economy stronger: they blew a big hole in the budget. Now when we need that surplus to pay for the bailouts, the stimulus, and the economic mismanagement, it's gone.

Bush policiticized parts of the government that should be nonpartisan. From NASA to the Justice Department, professionals were forced out or silenced if they departed from the "true Republican way." Of course every administration is political to some extent, but Bush (IMO) took it too far. It seems every major decision was determined by Karl Rove's figuring.

The "Bush years" were the ultimate test of trickle-down economics. This theory says that the government should favor the rich because the benefits will trickle down to the rest. The results of this experiment are clear: The U.S. has had the weakest job growth since the 1930s. The U.S. has had the biggest increase in its debt ever. We've had the highest share of national income going to profits since the 1920s. Income inequality has soared while our public and private investment has slowed to a trickle. It now takes $6 of debt to create $1 of GDP! Instead of building a fundamentally sound economy, Bush nurtured a ponzi economy based on get-rich-quick schemes by not only failing to regulate various aspects of our markets, but by specifically thwarting efforts to regulate the out-of-control mortgage (and derivatives) markets.

This, IMO, is Bush's legacy.

Laurie

Uhg! I am just glad the GUY is out of there. I call him the GUY because he doesn't deserve the respect to be called a man, much less the president. His legacy will be the feeling of "God, that was a bad dream... Thank God it is finally over". That is his legacy. Not going one day too soon - the world now celebrates a new era!

That simply is not true. I remember while Bush was beating the war drums thinking that he darn well better be right since he was choosing to act despite the fact that there were those in the intelligence community that were saying the evidence of the existence of WMDs in Iraq was not definative; only that there was evidence that there *might* be WMDs.

The WMDs were actually there but the Russians spirited them away to make us look bad???

Delusion is in the eye of the beholder.

You're welcome to believe whatever you like about what Bush's legacy will be and others are welcome to believe differently.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...0-06-wmd_x.htm

And Congressional leaders had briefings on what was going on, and they went along with it. So if you insist on blaming one, you have to blame all.

No one likes war, but it's sometimes necessary to grant or protect freedom.

Or, the 3rd possibility. There could be massive stockpiles of WMD buried somewhere in that vast, vast desert.

A man like Sadaam could have had teams of sappers bury the WMD, report the exact location to him and only him, and then had the entire teams executed. Then, when he was hanged, no living person would remain with the knowledge of where these weapons were.

Entire city states have been lost under that desert. A few medium sized ammo dumps would be easy

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...0-06-wmd_x.htm :

Why would they have to "produce" anything? When Russia decommissioned (or in many cases, ran aground and abandoned) the Soviet Northern Fleet, they took over 1900 nuclear warheads "out of service".

Where did they go? A little over a decade ago, Russia was nearly broke and had lots of nukes and chemical weapons. Iraq had oil money. An intriguing mix, no?

There are many controversal issues involving the administrations actions and policies. Debating these issues yet again, rehashing everyones beliefs and nonbeliefs with regards to them, is pointless and tiresome. At this point no one is going to change anyone elses mind.

The Bush administration is history. Obviously there are differing opinions about what his legacy will be. Time will tell.