George W. Bush: the legacy

[Monketi Ghost]

Seems to me, at least for the next ten years, W. will be reviled as a guy who had his heart in the right place (some will debate this) but was surrounded by idealogues who steered him in a bad direction. He got bad advice and followed it, and when he might have listened to better advice he chose to shut it out...

The guy seemed (I say this because I never met him) sort of dumb, uninquisitive, and I personally doubt he ever really wanted the job.
The judgment of history will bludgeon him with a tire iron.

Of course, I thought Reagan would be hated, and now they've turned him into a saint, shows what I know.

Any thoughts? I'd love to hear from some conservatives who can lend a voice to his defense.

 

[davefoc]

I have some thoughts, but mostly they have been put forth in numerous threads before this one.

But to give it one more go:

1. Was Bush cynically self serving or was he altruistic (in his intent)?

I think the key to understanding Bush is to understand that narcissism was a very important driver. The main policy decision makers of the Bush administration (Cheney and Rove) used Bush's narcissism to manipulate Bush into deciding what they wanted him to decide. Bush believed he was acting in the best interest of the US because he knew what his motivations were.

His extraordinary lack of introspection prevented him from understanding the degree to which he was manipulated or the horrible consequences of his actions.

However, the situation is not completely clear cut. It appears that in Bush's second term the influence of Cheney and Rove were greatly reduced. At least based on what has been leaked, it seems like American foreign policy in the middle east would have been substantially more hawkish if Cheney had gotten his way and of course Rove left the administration.

But my sense of it is that Bush's laziness and poor analytical skills have not allowed him to substantially improve the quality of his administration even after the influence of Cheney and Rove have been reduced.

2. Will history shine more favorably on Bush than current views would suggest?

I doubt it. Bush's failures are profound and wide ranging. There are few identifiable successes and there are many areas where things just got worse under Bush. The massive rise in cronyism and its effects is quantifiable and the stain of that just isn't going to be something that will fade away easily.

The Bush administration's attempts to undermine the rule of law with the politicization of the Justice Department should mark it forever as one of the worst administrations.

But I would look to Truman more than Reagan to answer the question as to whether history will look more favorably on him. Truman at the time of his administration seems to have been widely disliked, but today his administration seems to have been viewed more favorably. I don't know nearly enough to understand what the issues are with Truman to decide whether the people's consensus judgment at the time or the current assessment is more justified. But something of a transition seems to have occurred.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

Good reply.

All through his Presidency, I kept telling myself, "Bush is a smarter man than I. He must be- he's an Ivy-league educated POTUS, and Joe Average couldn't have risen to the most powerful office in the land."

Even now, I try convincing myself of this... but my faith in the idea that the American People wouldn't elect an unqualified buffoon wavers constantly. (See recent election... we'll have to check the results after a year or so)

My apologies as there are many threads on the subject, although it seemed a good notion now that we've heard from W. for the last time as President. Please feel free to merge or kill the thread, mods.

 

[davefoc]

Good reply.

Thank you, although when I reread it the number of typos and grammatical errors made me think whoever wrote it might have been a little drunk. Hopefully my edits reduced indications of my insobriety.

All through his Presidency, I kept telling myself, "Bush is a smarter man than I. He must be- he's an Ivy-league educated POTUS, and Joe Average couldn't have risen to the most powerful office in the land."

Even now, I try convincing myself of this... but my faith in the idea that the American People wouldn't elect an unqualified buffoon wavers constantly. (See recent election... we'll have to check the results after a year or so)

My apologies as there are many threads on the subject, although it seemed a good notion now that we've heard from W. for the last time as President. Please feel free to merge or kill the thread, mods.

As to Bush's intelligence:
I have had similar thoughts. At one time, I thought the very fact that he was capable of getting elected was evidence of considerable skill, if not intelligence. Now I am not so sure. Karl Rove seems to have played a huge role in the process that led to the election of Bush. What significant role did Bush play in his election beyond those that were provided by Rove's management of his campaign? Certainly it wasn't his grand skills as an orator. The rise of Palin suggested to me that a very large part of the American electorate favors candidates who make them feel comfortable with their religious and cultural ideas over candidates that had shown a proclivity for intellectual analysis or even integrity. Rove seems to have understood this and skillfully exploited that fact to get Bush elected.

My own cut it based on my own ideas about what constitutes intelligence is that Bush is less intelligent than the average individual. But it is tricky, I think he is lazy and not particularly inquisitive. That suggests that he might be intelligent by some measures but he has personality characteristics that lead to behaviors that don't seem intelligent.

As to whether there have been too many threads on this:
I have formed opinions on these things, but I am curious about whether the opinions are solidly founded on the available information or if they were formed as an extention of my preexisting biases. The answer may be unknowable, but I am curious enough about it to enjoy threads where the ideas are discussed.

 

[shadron]

I might suggest the viewing of the following Frontline videos:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/cheney/

Of course, these are going to be presentations which will be knocked by the right as pinko whining. I'd say, watch them and judge for yourself.

Bush's war in particular shows how the president was pushed around by Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and a huge cast of minions. The only decent, independent advice he got, from both of his Secs of State and some of the military, was drowned out by the hardliners until they all finally were forced to face their failures (except Cheney, who will die believing in what he did).

 

[Ziggurat]

We have not been hit since 9/11. Once the partisan bickering dies down, that's going to be seen as a major success. The Iraq war will also be seen differently a decade from now. There were plenty of mistakes made during its execution, but it looks like it's turning into a success, and that success will bury much of the criticism, just as failure tends to bury justifications. We feel the costs of war immediately, but the benefits will accrue over time.

 

[Allen773]

We have not been hit since 9/11. Once the partisan bickering dies down, that's going to be seen as a major success. The Iraq war will also be seen differently a decade from now. There were plenty of mistakes made during its execution, but it looks like it's turning into a success, and that success will bury much of the criticism, just as failure tends to bury justifications. We feel the costs of war immediately, but the benefits will accrue over time.

So what if we haven't been hit since 9/11? Al-Qaeda and its allies are too busy with the Iraq War, which is the gift that keeps on giving to them. In the meantime, the number of terrorist attacks worldwide has skyrocketed since 9/11 and particularly, the invasion of Iraq. They have regrouped in Pakistan and, at the same time, inspired a whole new generation of jihadists, who have taken up arms since the war in Iraq. From Madrid to London to Indonesia, the excessively aggressive War on Terror has backfired and resulted in thousands of innocent people being killed.

And Iraq has cost us trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives, all due to the administration's lies, arrogance, and hubris.

Not to mention the millions (yes, millions) of Iraqi lives that are either a direct result of us attacking, or a result form the civil war and sectarian warfare that we ignited in Iraq.

And that's just Bush's legacy when it comes to foreign policy....

 

[Ziggurat]

So what if we haven't been hit since 9/11?

Um... I would have thought that everyone would agree that that is a good thing. Am I wrong about that assumption?

Al-Qaeda and its allies are too busy with the Iraq War, which is the gift that keeps on giving to them.

So why have they pretty much admitted defeat in Iraq? It hasn't given them anything except a sink hole for their resources. They have failed to accomplish their goals in Iraq, but have instead shown the entire world that Al Qaeda is far better at killing muslim civilians than infidels.

In the meantime, the number of terrorist attacks worldwide has skyrocketed since 9/11 and particularly, the invasion of Iraq.

Combat intensity increases when you start fighting back. American casualties were much higher on D-Day than during Pearl Harbor.

They have regrouped in Pakistan

Pakistan is a serious problem. But it was a serious problem before Bush took office, too, most people were just blissfully unaware of it.

Not to mention the millions (yes, millions) of Iraqi lives that are either a direct result of us attacking, or a result form the civil war and sectarian warfare that we ignited in Iraq.

Um... yeah. You might want to rewrite this sentence.

 

[Allen773]

Um... I would have thought that everyone would agree that that is a good thing. Am I wrong about that assumption?
/QUOTE]

It is a good thing, but you're taking it out of context of the broader world-worldwide, terrorism has increased tremendously.

And for all you know, al-Qaeda is planning multiple attacks against America right now. 9/11 was a provocation for America to launch out in rash acts of aggression against the Muslim world. So far, we have yet to demonstrate that we have done otherwise. Instead, we have killed a lot of Muslims and pissed most of the rest of them off.

The Iraq War has been a sink hole for our resources more than it has been for al-Qaeda and its allies. We have created a new generation of terrorists because of our misadventure in Iraq. The world will be suffering for quite a while due to that.

Also, conservative estimates put the death toll from the Iraq War at half a million people, at the very least.

 

[Upchurch]

Um... I would have thought that everyone would agree that that is a good thing. Am I wrong about that assumption?

Oh, I agree it's a good thing. I just don't agree with assumption that it was Bush's doing.

(and there was the anthrax thing, but thats just picking nits)

 

[Ziggurat]

It is a good thing

Then it deserves praise.

but you're taking it out of context of the broader world-worldwide, terrorism has increased tremendously.

Praise for one thing does not preclude criticism for something else. But it's looking like your desire to criticize is precluding you from offering any praise.

And for all you know, al-Qaeda is planning multiple attacks against America right now.

I'm sure they are. They have already had plans to attack us since 9/11 that didn't work out. Whatever they're planning right now, they haven't been able to keep the pace they had before 9/11 of one significant attack on a US target every few years.

9/11 was a provocation for America to launch out in rash acts of aggression against the Muslim world.

Well, no. Look up what bin Laden said about US involvement in Somalia: the response he wanted and expected was retreat on our part. Whatever its faults, the Iraq invasion was NOT a goal of Al Qaeda's 9/11 attacks.

Instead, we have killed a lot of Muslims and pissed most of the rest of them off.

There may be moral arguments against killing lots of muslims, but the idea that it can only earn us enemies is ridiculous. Killing Germans is what got them to stop being our enemy.

We have created a new generation of terrorists because of our misadventure in Iraq.

So why then has Al Qaeda's popularity in the muslim world declined since the invasion of Iraq?

Also, conservative estimates put the death toll from the Iraq War at half a million people, at the very least.

There are plenty of threads discussing the death tolls in Iraq, I have no desire to get into those debates here. But the fact of the matter is, Americans won't really care if, at the end of the day, we win. You may not like that, but it's still what will happen.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

davefoc. You stated my very thoughts elegantly... my worst fears, really, that most of my fellow citizens vote for reasons other than intellect and ability.

Ziggurat, solid answer. I'm straddling some of the points you made, and wonder.

Let's all post here without being personal or making tit-for-tat shots at each other.

 

[Tricky]

His greatest accomplishment is something that didn't happen? Shouldn't we also say that this is something that all the presidents before him also accomplished, and indeed, more completely than him, since most didn't even have one attack by foreign terrorists inside our country. Okay, there was a World Trade Center bombing a month into the Clinton administration. But none after. Didn't he keep us safe too?

Shouldn't Clinton get credit for keeping us safe from financial crashes? From mishandled natural disasters? From eviscerating environmental laws? From shotgun-weilding vice presidents?

Don't get me wrong. I think Bush did some good things. His "No Child Left Behind" was an ambitious plan with a good goal in mind, though tragically underfunded. He took principled stands on illegal immigration and allowing our allies, the UAE to run some port facilities. It is notable, though, that he didn't cast a veto until his fifth year in office, and that, to override Congress's approval of removing restrictions on funding stem-cell research. His second veto was to torpedo the Children's Health Insurance Program. Most of the time, he rubber-stamped the Republican Congress, which had majorities in both houses for much of his term.

Even assuming the war in Iraq improves things there, what other major policy decisions will the light of history ever reflect positively on? As we struggle for many years with the largest deficit ever, a deficit that was less than zero when he took office, how can anyone reasonably expect to look back on these years with admiration for the 43rd President and his administration? I simply don't see it happening.

 

[Ziggurat]

His greatest accomplishment is something that didn't happen? Shouldn't we also say that this is something that all the presidents before him also accomplished,

No, it is not. Clinton had multiple Al Qaeda attacks on his watch. And considering bin Laden's enmity with the US started in 1990, it's pretty safe to ignore any presidents before Bush 1 for that comparison.

Okay, there was a World Trade Center bombing a month into the Clinton administration. But none after.

While one could categorize the USS Cole as a different category (though I doubt Al Qaeda would), the African embassy bombings should definitely be included as well, so no, that wasn't "none after".

Shouldn't Clinton get credit for keeping us safe from financial crashes?

Clinton does get credit for managing the economy well.

Even assuming the war in Iraq improves things there, what other major policy decisions will the light of history ever reflect positively on?

At least in some circles, he will get a lot of credit for his supreme court picks (though not the Meirs nomination). Certainly if you're a conservative, those picks seem to be working out fairly well.

 

[Tricky]

No, it is not. Clinton had multiple Al Qaeda attacks on his watch. And considering bin Laden's enmity with the US started in 1990, it's pretty safe to ignore any presidents before Bush 1 for that comparison.

While one could categorize the USS Cole as a different category (though I doubt Al Qaeda would), the African embassy bombings should definitely be included as well, so no, that wasn't "none after".

That's why I specified "inside our country". If we get to count foreign attacks, then the many hundreds of bombings in Iraq and Afghanistan aimed at US troops and installations should count against him. And of course, there were the terrorist attacks on our allies in Spain and England.

Besides, I think that whoever the president had been after 911 would have stepped up security. It was a no-brainer, not a brilliant idea.

 

[Allen773]

In Clinton's defense, the attacks that happened "on his watch" occurred before we really understood the terrorist threat we were up against. By 2001, in the aftermath of the embassy bombings and the Cole bombing, we had a much clearer picture of al-Qaeda. We discovered that they wanted to attack our homeland in the wake of the millennium plot-but at that time, Clinton had just 1 year left in office.

At least Clinton's administration (a lot of credit goes to Richard Clarke, Cofer Black, John O'Neill, and Dale Watson here) tried-Clinton presided over the capture of Ramzi Yousef and his associates and attempted to do destroy al-Qaeda's training camps-much to the criticism of people who said he was "wagging the dog" while in the midst of an impeachment process over lying about a sexual act.

It has been documented by multiple individuals that Bush and his national security team (with the exception of Richard Clarke) did not take the al-Qaeda threat seriously before 9/11.

 

[Texas]

His greatest accomplishment is something that didn't happen? Shouldn't we also say that this is something that all the presidents before him also accomplished, and indeed, more completely than him, since most didn't even have one attack by foreign terrorists inside our country. Okay, there was a World Trade Center bombing a month into the Clinton administration. But none after. Didn't he keep us safe too?

I guess the 1996 Khobar Towers explosion in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, the 1998 embassy explosions in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and the 2000 attack on the USS Cole in Aden, Yemen don't count? Clinton did absolutely nothing to bring the people responsible to justice.

Shouldn't Clinton get credit for keeping us safe from financial crashes? From mishandled natural disasters? From eviscerating environmental laws? From shotgun-weilding vice presidents?

Let's see, the dot com crash, refusal to regulate Fannie and Freddie, repeal of Glass-Steagall? His policies insisting that sub-prime mortgages were needed to help low income people get loans? Bush's handling of Katrina was one of the fastest deployment of federal resources to a disaster ever undertaken and the most money ever spent on a single event. What environmental laws has he eviscerated? The crack about Cheney is bush league. I won't list the policies that pleased conservatives since it would be a futile effort of a liberal website.

Don't get me wrong. I think Bush did some good things. His "No Child Left Behind" was an ambitious plan with a good goal in mind, though tragically underfunded. He took principled stands on illegal immigration and allowing our allies, the UAE to run some port facilities. It is notable, though, that he didn't cast a veto until his fifth year in office, and that, to override Congress's approval of removing restrictions on funding stem-cell research. His second veto was to torpedo the Children's Health Insurance Program. Most of the time, he rubber-stamped the Republican Congress, which had majorities in both houses for much of his term.

He signed the McCain-Feingold bill over the objections of the Republicans and demanded by democrats until Obama decided that limits on campaign spending wasn't so important after all.. Bush fought his own party over comprehensive immigration reform, he passed the medicare prescription plan over the objections of his own party then he fought for social security reform against the democrats who said that SS was not in any trouble and now Obama is placing SS reform as one of his top priorities. I can almost guarantee that Obama will not use his veto pen any more than Bush with the size of the democratic majority in congress.

Even assuming the war in Iraq improves things there, what other major policy decisions will the light of history ever reflect positively on? As we struggle for many years with the largest deficit ever, a deficit that was less than zero when he took office, how can anyone reasonably expect to look back on these years with admiration for the 43rd President and his administration? I simply don't see it happening.

He inherited a recession that began in 2000 after the dot com crash and then 911 that wiped out over a trillion dollars in a week that sent the economy deeper into a tail spin. The deficit was surprisingly low given the amounts spent for the war, anti-terror expenditures and the natural disasters. The economy was robust with historically low unemployment from 2003 to 2007 until the housing market went to hell and the banking system collapse. He asked for 700 billion to stop a total melt down but congress gave him only 350 billion the rest will be spent by Obama on top of the reported 1 trillion dollar stimulus package.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

interesting... let's keep it on topic, this ain't about what Bill Clinton accomplished.

 

[Texas]

It has been documented by multiple individuals that Bush and his national security team (with the exception of Richard Clarke) did not take the al-Qaeda threat seriously before 9/11.

Bush, due to having only a 3 week transition period did not even have a full cabinet until august of 2001 due to drawn out Senate confirmation hearings. Richard Clarke is a self aggrandizing hack.

 

[Allen773]

Bush, due to having only a 3 week transition period did not even have a full cabinet until august of 2001 due to drawn out Senate confirmation hearings. Richard Clarke is a self aggrandizing hack.

Which was to be expected when you pick a religious nutjob like Ashcroft for Attorney General.

And Richard Clarke is one of the most knowledgeable and respected authorities on terrorism. Who are you to judge him?