Jump to content
UNRV Ancient Roman Empire Forums
  • Time Travel Rome

Caesar CXXXVII

Bush and historians

Recommended Posts

I believe it is the popular trend to dismiss him as one of the worst presidents thought in my opinion it's way to early to evaluate the impact of his presidency over the US and the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe it is the popular trend to dismiss him as one of the worst presidents thought in my opinion it's way to early to evaluate the impact of his presidency over the US and the world.

I think this article has it just about right. I believe that the claim that his policies have kept Americans safe since 9/11 is preposterous and arrogant - the diligence of the CIA and other security agencies have, rather, protected Americans from the extremism and terrorism fostered by his foreign policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe it is the popular trend to dismiss him as one of the worst presidents thought in my opinion it's way to early to evaluate the impact of his presidency over the US and the world.

I think this article has it just about right. I believe that the claim that his policies have kept Americans safe since 9/11 is preposterous and arrogant - the diligence of the CIA and other security agencies have, rather, protected Americans from the extremism and terrorism fostered by his foreign policy.

 

However, the trade center was destroyed prior to the policies that speak of. Here's a good list indicating the run up of terrorism against the US that had nothing to do with Bush. Presidents, as with any world leader, often get too much blame or credit for many things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe it is the popular trend to dismiss him as one of the worst presidents thought in my opinion it's way to early to evaluate the impact of his presidency over the US and the world.

I think this article has it just about right. I believe that the claim that his policies have kept Americans safe since 9/11 is preposterous and arrogant - the diligence of the CIA and other security agencies have, rather, protected Americans from the extremism and terrorism fostered by his foreign policy.

 

Bush tendency to make dim witted remarks and "cowboy" certainly gave his critics around the world ammo to use against the US however I feel that many of them were simply oppose to the US regardless of who would be sitting in the oval office.

 

I have the feeling that after "the black president" will fail to answer to wet dreams of the extreme left in the world and people like Chavez and Ahmadinejad we would hear from them how he sold out and "gone white" or how the racists elites prevented him from fulfilling his ideology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have the feeling that after "the black president" will fail to answer to wet dreams of the extreme left in the world and people like Chavez and Ahmadinejad we would hear from them how he sold out and "gone white" or how the racists elites prevented him from fulfilling his ideology.

So in that sense, is the American President ( Whomever he/she may be) merely a constitutional figurehead like our queen, or does the office have real power?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think this article has it just about right. I believe that the claim that his policies have kept Americans safe since 9/11 is preposterous and arrogant - the diligence of the CIA and other security agencies have, rather, protected Americans from the extremism and terrorism fostered by his foreign policy.

That HNN article is at a knee-jerk level, scooping up disjointed mudslinging statements along with only some silly positive statements just for pretence of balance. Here is a more adult assessment, about equally hostile, but at least taking responsiblity for their judgements: http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstate...ory_id=12931660

 

Securitywise, the Bush1/Clinton/Bush2/Obama alternation may reflect a good cop / bad cop kind of approach which can be very effective in dealing with tough advisaries. I believe the electorate unconciously applies this. The "good" cop drips with empathy and focuses good intentions or at least good potential out of his subject. Contrary to widespread Christian or new age beliefs, there is an age old demographic for which this emboldens ruthless and unreasonable acts. Next they get handed to the "bad" cop (actually a tough love cop with hard exterior) who shocks the transgressors with realworld limits and consequences. This throws them back in the arms of good cop, where constructive negotiation can proceed (easier treatment due to circumstances or revealing associates or the body or repayment).

 

That is the concept; spare me the obvious observations where this was done incompetently or where the issue was misunderstood. But the hostile press overlooks the buildup of embolded action and rhetoric by adversaries under Clinton, and the quiet unwinding after Iraq invasion such as with Libyan nuclear program. Yeah, there is a P.R. cost. Similarly in financials, it was the "nurturing" Clinton approach which by law forced Ginnie/Freddie to throw mortgage money at hopeless deadbeats. Bush tried to reform this, but was outvoted (same for immigration reform). Bush was a terrible communicator about his constructive acts.

 

Anyway, Bush is inherently a type that is viscerally disliked by many and time will have to tell about a lot of things. Understand that he is a Cultural Conservative vs. a Philosophical Conservative. Anyone might be swayed or at least have grudging respect for the logic of a philosophic point, but culture is pretty ingrained. By "Cultural", I don't mean the slavish regression to the past like some Euro conservative movements, but an ideology that still respects many principles whose logic may be hard to appreciate, but they seemed to allow Darwinian survival of societies.

 

Conservatism has to be split in this way, because it's philosophical principles may take a lifetime to accept thru the hard knocks of dealing with real human nature vs the wishful thinking that you are born with and experience with a mother. Churchill said "To be conservative at 20 is heartless and to be a liberal at 60 is plain idiocy". For "logical" conservativism to survive this problem at the voter box, it has to have some young "cultural" support, even if is something weird brought along by natural selection like a platypus with doubtful appendages.

 

I think cultural conservatism is bad tasting medicine with bad side effects, but is a needed part of life occasionally. The western world can rejoice all it wants at eliminating cultural conservatism and being nurturing to the (culturally conservative) world, but it will likely kill needed elements of philosophical conservatism and implode like the Roman world.

 

P.S. Some bad things thing Bush did to gain populist support may have great counter effects. He defied ideology and the mantle of responsiblity to giveaway selective trade protection and expensive medicine coverage. This was normally the knee-jerk position of the opposing "mommy" party, but gave them cover to rise to a more nuanced and responsible position. Sounds trivial, but I sense much of the old deadlocked paradigm may have been shattered and allowing Obama's "change" slogan. That slogan sounds weirdly plausible, because even though he comes from one of the most thoroughly corrupt regional gov'ts in the country and instead of reforming it just sidled up to unsavory characters in the pursuit of street cred, I think he lacks much ideology of any kind and can at least entertain the practical good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Over 8 years of Bush

 

4,229 military deaths, Iraq only

30,960 military wounded, Iraq only

151,000 civilian deaths, Iraq only

Torture defended

No holds barred spying on US citizens--by their own government

US infrastructure abandoned: e.g. Katrina, and the tens of thousands crumbling bridges

A disdain for science: e.g. no action on global warming or alternate sources of energy

Global rejection of US policies

An economy wrecked by a failure to enforce regulations and guidelines

A disregard for the US Constitution

A misuse of religion

Criminal ignorance

 

Good riddance

 

Did I forget anything?

Edited by Ludovicus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have the feeling that after "the black president" will fail to answer to wet dreams of the extreme left in the world and people like Chavez and Ahmadinejad we would hear from them how he sold out and "gone white" or how the racists elites prevented him from fulfilling his ideology.

So in that sense, is the American President ( Whomever he/she may be) merely a constitutional figurehead like our queen, or does the office have real power?

 

I do believe Presidents are assigned much more blame/credit for the economy than they deserve.

 

However, foreign policy and security policy is something clearly within a President's array of decision making capabilities. On that account, spreading American forces thin in a two front war (of which one front's necessity is highly contested), and vaporizing the post 9-11 universal good will to the US almost overnight with a radically interventionist foreign policy, will be something that any objective observer must conceed as having limited US power and capability.

 

But at least he didn't throw up on the Japanese prime minister, like his father.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bush was a complete idiot, I wish one of those shoes actually hit him. I can't believe any human could talk about a war and smile and laugh about it. And when his plans didn't work he didn't point out that they were bad ideas he said he stood behind them 100%. I can't believe you Americans actually voted that man into the White House. Still, I'm gonna miss the stupid things he said. (By the way I'm not American I'm Canadian.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have the feeling that after "the black president" will fail to answer to wet dreams of the extreme left in the world and people like Chavez and Ahmadinejad we would hear from them how he sold out and "gone white" or how the racists elites prevented him from fulfilling his ideology.

So in that sense, is the American President ( Whomever he/she may be) merely a constitutional figurehead like our queen, or does the office have real power?

 

What I meant that some of his critics would oppose any American president because they oppose the US in general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't believe you Americans actually voted that man into the White House...

 

To be fair, in 2000 they actually didnt, and in 2004 he got in by the narrowest of margins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't believe you Americans actually voted that man into the White House...

 

To be fair, in 2000 they actually didnt, and in 2004 he got in by the narrowest of margins.

 

If not for the opponents he faced (Al "I invented the internet and nature itself" Gore, and John "Lurch" Kerry) he probably wouldn't have won either election (dependent entirely of course on one's definition of "won"). It's the sad state of affairs in politics that the best we've had to offer in the last 8 years and 3 elections is George "if you would care to recall I was actually quite popular for about a month or so" Bush twice, his two previously mentioned opponents above, John "I'm damned old and it's my damned turn to scare you" McCain, Sarah "could I be any more of a nitwit" Palin, Barack "H is for holy shit he's actually less experienced than the Alaskan clown" Obama and Joe "I've been in office doing nothing except living off the American taxpayer for about 6 decades" Biden.

 

Alas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Map of the Roman Empire

×