George W. Bush: the legacy

[interwaff]

Noble and right. Cheney even more so.

Low opinions don't matter and never did. People mistakenly attach weight to them, despite their invalidity, because they think they look more popular and caring to hate and whine loudly about non-liberal things. After all, what could be more important than impressing open-minded friends? Because he who smiles is your always your friend!

 

[Upchurch]

I have to give him this much: I thought for sure he would fully pardon Libby and, unless he does it really last minute, it looks like he won't. That's something, right?

 

[Sefarst]

The problem with Bush's legacy is that, over time, this quibbling about who was responsible for what is going to go away, and what people will see is that during Bush's time in office

1) Our country was successfully attacked, on our soil, in the largest terrorist attack in history. I mean, we are talking about the deadliest attack by a foreign invader on US soil ever, right? I don't think 3000 died in Pearl Harbor.
2) Two wars were started, which were not completed by the time he left office
3) The economy had the largest collapse since the Great Depression.

Oh, and just for fun, let's throw in the fact that the Israelis and Palestinians are actively warring as he leaves office, too, although I'm not sure that will be remembered.

How much more of a disaster could a presidential term be? I mean, Herbert Hoover is usually considered a hopeless president, but he can say at least the US wasn't attacked and the country wasn't at war under his watch. FDR was attacked and took the country to war, but the economy recovered from the Depression while he was there (granted, the two aspects may not be unrelated, but there it is)

Fortunately, historians are not that shallow. They actually determine the causes of events, and not just the fact that they happened on someone's watch. The idea that Bush is responsible for the current financial crisis is half-baked at best. The Israel/Palestine criticism is shallow as well. Blaming Bush for 9/11 is also ridiculous.

 

[Texas]

I have to give him this much: I thought for sure he would fully pardon Libby and, unless he does it really last minute, it looks like he won't. That's something, right?

Well one conspiracy theory is put to rest. He didn't pardon himself, Cheney or those involved in interrogations of the poor innocents at GITMO.I guess he must feel that if Congress wants to play defense attorney on national TV for terrorists and prosecutors for those that fought them he is willing to take that chance. That will be "must see TV".

 

[davefoc]

I have to give him this much: I thought for sure he would fully pardon Libby and, unless he does it really last minute, it looks like he won't. That's something, right?

I didn't think he would pardon Libby.

1. I don't think he necessarily approved of what Libby did.
2. He hasn't issued all that many pardons.
3. He seems to have a genuine sense of ethics about them. He pulled back one of the pardons when new facts arose that suggested the guy he was pardoning didn't deserve it.
4. There was little benefit to pardoning Libby unless it was the part of a pure quid pro quo deal. The probable purpose of commuting Libby's sentence was to protect Cheney. That was accomplished at least as well with the commutation as it would have been with a pardon.
5. The thought has occurred to me that congress might have more power over a fully pardoned Libby to compel him to testify than a Libby with a commuted sentence.
6. A Libby pardon was probably a net loser for the Republicans. Yeah, the partisan base would have liked it, but it would have been a wildly unpopular action with the Democrats, fairly unpopular amongst the independents and only somewhat popular amongst Republicans in general.

But as I write this there's still nine hours or so to go before we'll know for sure. But I don't think Libby should be sitting by the door waiting for the special delivery truck with his pardon tonight.

I think the only guy that's in serious risk of prosecution that was part of the Bush administration was Gonzalez, but I'm thinking that's not going to happen right now.

Keith Olberman was advocating going after the various people who had authorized the probably illegal treatment of prisoners tonight. Personally, I'd favor it, but for various reasons, the first being the difficulties of the prosecutions, I think nobody gets prosecuted on that either.

 

[davefoc]

Fortunately, historians are not that shallow. They actually determine the causes of events, and not just the fact that they happened on someone's watch. The idea that Bush is responsible for the current financial crisis is half-baked at best. The Israel/Palestine criticism is shallow as well. Blaming Bush for 9/11 is also ridiculous.

1. Current Financial Crisis
Bush oversaw what is certainly one of the biggest spending administrations of all time. The national debt doubled on his watch and at least some of the current financial crisis is a result of the Bush administrations fiscal irresponsibility and its crony driven approach to governance.

The Democrats deserve blame for the Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae disasters at least partially, but the reason why the founders didn't put the congress in charge is because congress is almost always partisan, corrupt, fractured, and completely incapable of running the country. Bush was in charge. Bush said he tried to warn people. Who, if not Bush, was in a better position to do something about the mess. At the very least there was the bully pulpit which Bush chose not to use for this issue.

Bush managed to get the corrupt medicare drug plan through a Republican controlled congress. Why couldn't he have gotten some Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae reforms through the same congress?

2. Whatever your views Bush's attempts to do something about the Palestinian/Israeli conflict things have not made things better. I think he contributed to the problem because I think he did the wrong things. But whether you agree with me or not about that, the fact is that whether he did the right or wrong things nothing got better.

3. Whether 9/11 could have been prevented or not and by who is a reasonable question. The Bush administration clearly focused on the Star Wars defense ideas more than terrorism in their early days and it is not clear that Condoleeza Rice's inaction didn't contribute to the US vulnerability. *

* My personal view is that the FAA coupled with the airline industry was the entity most responsible for 9/11. There were at least two significant incidents in the world prior to 9/11 which suggested the possibility of suicide attacks similar to the 9/11 attacks. The industry coupled with support from the FAA chose not to take the most straightforward steps to do something about it. And that was to install secure flight deck doors.

Instead the US and the world have incurred costs in the hundreds of billions of dollars because the airlines chose to save a few bucks.

ETA: On the historians aren't that shallow.
On the polls of historians I've seen Bush is seen as being amongst the 10 worst by the vast majority of the polled historians. Usually Buchanan is brought up as some sort of bell weather for really crappy presidents and many do compare Bush favorably to him, but beyond Buchanan I don't recall any other president that was viewed so unfavorably as Bush by the historians. So at least a lot of the polled historians do seem pretty shallow by Sefarst's standards.

 

[fishbob]

No. It is a good thing, it is not merely the appearance of a good thing. I understand that it is not the only thing, and you are free to weigh other factors as more important if you like, but do not tell me I am missing the point on this. I am not.

Yes it is good that no more Americans have been blown up at home, but at what cost? How many people have been injured in little ways because of the steps Bush took? And which of the steps, if any, worked? Was it just blind luck or lack of turrist resources to try again? What we are left with is the appearance of security.

 

[Chaos]

Yes it is good that no more Americans have been blown up at home, but at what cost? How many people have been injured in little ways because of the steps Bush took? And which of the steps, if any, worked? Was it just blind luck or lack of turrist resources to try again? What we are left with is the appearance of security.

And, I might add, the 4000-odd (or is it 5000-odd) Americans killed in the useless and unnecessary adventure in Iraq might disagree on the claim that Bush saved American lives from terrorism. Thankfully for the Bush worshippers, however, they are in no condition to speak up.

I would have added the tens of thousands of foreigners killed in Iraq and Afghanistan as well, but I already know none of the Bush worshipper give a wet fart about them.

 

[Sefarst]

1. Current Financial Crisis
Bush oversaw what is certainly one of the biggest spending administrations of all time. The national debt doubled on his watch and at least some of the current financial crisis is a result of the Bush administrations fiscal irresponsibility and its crony driven approach to governance.

The financial crisis is 20 years in the making. It doesn't even make much sense to argue that the government should have spent less in order to avoid the current recession. And if you're going to throw cronyism out there as a reason for the crisis, I think you're really fishing for excuses to blame Bush. If you want to complain about the national debt, complain about what your grandchildren are going to have to pay down. Beyond that, there's not much you can say about the national debt in reference to the current crisis aside from whether or not you're willing to let it grow larger in order to introduce new stimulus plans in an attempt to get us out of this recession.

The Democrats deserve blame for the Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae disasters at least partially, but the reason why the founders didn't put the congress in charge is because congress is almost always partisan, corrupt, fractured, and completely incapable of running the country. Bush was in charge.

Congress is in charge of the purse strings.

Why couldn't he have gotten some Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae reforms through the same congress?

Have you seen Congress recently?

Whatever your views Bush's attempts to do something about the Palestinian/Israeli conflict things have not made things better. I think he contributed to the problem because I think he did the wrong things. But whether you agree with me or not about that, the fact is that whether he did the right or wrong things nothing got better.

So far, no one has been able to solve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. But one could argue that events like the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 represented an improvement and Hamas swearing off suicide bombers in 2005 was an improvement. Granted, it's not clear whether or not Bush can take credit for any of this, but the "on his watch" argument that so many seem fond of would still apply here as well, wouldn't it?

* My personal view is that the FAA coupled with the airline industry was the entity most responsible for 9/11. There were at least two significant incidents in the world prior to 9/11 which suggested the possibility of suicide attacks similar to the 9/11 attacks. The industry coupled with support from the FAA chose not to take the most straightforward steps to do something about it. And that was to install secure flight deck doors.

I don't think they were the MOST to blame, but secure flight deck doors certainly might have prevented the disaster. Though, perhaps Al Qaeda would have just adjusted their plan to something else as soon as that change was made and we'd be looking for who to blame for some other unpredictable event.

ETA: On the historians aren't that shallow.
On the polls of historians I've seen Bush is seen as being amongst the 10 worst by the vast majority of the polled historians. Usually Buchanan is brought up as some sort of bell weather for really crappy presidents and many do compare Bush favorably to him, but beyond Buchanan I don't recall any other president that was viewed so unfavorably as Bush by the historians. So at least a lot of the polled historians do seem pretty shallow by Sefarst's standards.

According to Wikipedia's chart of scholarly surveys, the Wall Street Journal's 2005 poll of scholars ranked him #18 and that's the most recent they have. If you have more recent I'd be happy to see it.

But what you've constructed with your last sentence is a strawman anyway. Ranking Bush low wouldn't qualify as shallow among historians, ranking him according to what happened "on his watch" would be the shallow part.

 

[drkitten]

We have not been hit since 9/11. Once the partisan bickering dies down, that's going to be seen as a major success.

I doubt it. Al-Qaeda simply got lucky on 9/11 and took advantage of agency complacency. The very fact that they got lucky took care of the complacency problem.

Once the partisan bickering dies down, 9/11 is going to be relegated to the same "unfortunate isolated event" category as the OKC bombing, and the Bush policy is going to be regarded as a MAJOR overreaction.

The Iraq war will also be seen differently a decade from now.

Yes. There will no longer be idiot apologists who even TRY to explain that it's really a success.

 

[Ziggurat]

I doubt it. Al-Qaeda simply got lucky on 9/11 and took advantage of agency complacency. The very fact that they got lucky took care of the complacency problem.

Except it wasn't just luck. They had a track record of attacks, a track record which they haven't been able to continue since. It isn't just that we haven't had a 9/11-sized attack, we haven't even had a 1993 WTC-type attack, or an African embassy bombing-type attack, or a Cole-type incident, or another Khobar towers.

Once the partisan bickering dies down, 9/11 is going to be relegated to the same "unfortunate isolated event" category as the OKC bombing,

No. OKC WAS an isolated event. 9/11 was clearly not isolated: it was part of a declared war by a large organization with a track record of attacks against us.

Yes. There will no longer be idiot apologists who even TRY to explain that it's really a success.

Because ad hominems really prove how right and smart you are and how wrong and stupid I am.

 

[Random]

Slight diversion, but I am sick of the grief the right wing gives Clinton over the Cole bombing.

Date of the USS Cole bombing – October 12, 2000

Date of the next Presidential election – November 7, 2000

Date of actually deciding who would be the next president – December 12, 2000

Bill Clinton’s last day in office- January 20, 2001

So, by any standard you want to go by, Clinton had a little over three months to respond to the Cole bombing, two of which were spent not knowing who the next president would be. What exactly, was he supposed to do? Start a large scale war just before an election? Start a war during the Bush vs Gore mess?

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

No. OKC WAS an isolated event. 9/11 was clearly not isolated: it was part of a declared war by a large organization with a track record of attacks against us.

011 was fairly isolated. If you mean the group assigned the label 'Al-Qaeda 'when you describe large organization then don't believe the hype. 'Al-Qaeda' isn't a large organization and never was. It's pretty much Bin Laden ( if he's still alive which is doubtful ) and Zawahiri and a few hangers on.

The neocon propaganda has been responsible for painting the picture of Al-Qaeda being this large structured organisation. It's nothing of the sort. It's just part of the movement of Islamism.

Obama is president now, so there's no need to follow the old Bush/Neocon nonsense anymore. That's so yesterday. yawn.

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Bush's legacy will be those shoes that narrowly, but sadly, missed him. The guy was a bumbling idiot that was clearly not upto the job and was manipulated by the neocons that he was stupid enough to give the top jobs to.

 

[Ziggurat]

011 was fairly isolated. If you mean the group assigned the label 'Al-Qaeda 'when you describe large organization then don't believe the hype. 'Al-Qaeda' isn't a large organization and never was. It's pretty much Bin Laden ( if he's still alive which is doubtful ) and Zawahiri and a few hangers on.

The neocon propaganda has been responsible for painting the picture of Al-Qaeda being this large structured organisation. It's nothing of the sort.

Richard Clarke is a neocon? Wow. Learn something new every day.

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Richard Clarke is a neocon? Wow. Learn something new every day.

You can roll your pretty little eyes all you like sweety but Tony Blair wasn't a neocon and he swallowed the neocon's propaganda as well. And so did many others.

 

[Crowlogic]

Bush and cohorts rightful place in history is to be swinging from the end of a rope. That said even if 911 haden't happened we still would have been assailed with the Bush neocon dogma. We still would not have had a responsible energy policy or a cutting edge scientific policy and our economy would have hemeraged the same jobs and the neo robber barons would still have picked our pockets. Bush turned the US into a laughing stock and with any luck future historians will keep a tire iron handy when discussing him.

 

[Ziggurat]

You can roll your pretty little eyes all you like sweety but Tony Blair wasn't a neocon and he swallowed the neocon's propaganda as well. And so did many others.

Estimations of Al Qaeda's strength aren't an issue of neocon propaganda, but of intelligence analysis. An analysis that concluded that Al Qaeda was a large and dangerous organization before Bush was even elected, done by analysists who aren't all (or even mostly) neocons. If you want to provide evidence that their analysis of Al Qaeda was all just propaganda, feel free to do so, but you have not as of yet provided any evidence to that effect.

And my eyes aren't pretty, and I'm not sweet. I'm an ugly jerk. Pick a new tactic if you want your insults to leave a mark.

 

[Pardalis]

Bush and cohorts rightful place in history is to be swinging from the end of a rope. That said [...]

"That said"? You can't just say something like that and move on to another point.

This was an utterly disgusting and undemocratic thing to say.

 

[davefoc]

The financial crisis is 20 years in the making. It doesn't even make much sense to argue that the government should have spent less in order to avoid the current recession. And if you're going to throw cronyism out there as a reason for the crisis, I think you're really fishing for excuses to blame Bush. If you want to complain about the national debt, complain about what your grandchildren are going to have to pay down. Beyond that, there's not much you can say about the national debt in reference to the current crisis aside from whether or not you're willing to let it grow larger in order to introduce new stimulus plans in an attempt to get us out of this recession.

Congress is in charge of the purse strings.

I think there is some truth to what you say, but it also implies that the president has considerably less power with regards to the economy than what I believe is the actual situation.

I have had similar discussions previously with both you and Ziggurat about this. Both of you. in my view, overestimate the role of congress and underestimate Bush's responsibility with regards to the US economy.

When I was just young enough to begin to understand the organization of government and the ideals of Democracy I was a bit taken aback by how much power the US president had. It was only later when I began to understand the reality of how organizations run that I began to understand the necessity of being able to link authority and responsibility and I began to appreciate why the US government was set up the way it was.

Yes, the congress has a lot of power in that only it can pass legislation, but certainly in modern times the president plays a huge role in establishing what that legislation will be. Obviously, he has the veto power and it wouldn't make much sense for the legislature to go off willy nilly creating legislation that the president was just going to veto. In addition, the president is in charge of the government bureaucracy. Congress gives considerable leeway to the various government bureaucracies to set rules and to control the disposition of their funds.

George Bush not only had eight years as president but he had six years with a Republican controlled legislature. He used that power to massively increase crony driven spending and he did nothing about festering problems like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He massively increased unfunded spending which per force weakened the international power of the US more than almost any military attack ever has.

Ziggurat, in particular, has argued that congress is greatly to blame here and all that is required is for people to elect better legislators. And I agree that on some theoretical planet not occupied by entities with human proclivities a better congress could have been elected. Down here on planet earth people elect legislators because they like them, or because they appeal to their religious or cultural biases or because they think the guy can be more successful than some other guy at getting benefits from the US treasury for his district. They don't elect legislators because they think they'll do a good job running the country. That would be silly because assigning responsibility to a 535 member committee would be impossible so reasonably enough people don't expect them to have the authority to do so.

The person they elect to run things on the federal level is the president and when things don't go well as they certainly didn't under Bush it is reasonable that he should be seen as responsible. And based on that, well over 70% of the country sees Bush as responsible for a whole lot of this mess and I think they're right to do so.