CQ TODAY ONLINE NEWS
Jan. 15, 2009 – 5:51 a.m.
History May See Lincoln-Like Greatness in George W. Bush
By Richard L. Connor, CQ Guest Columnist
It’s easy to make comparisons between President-elect Barack Obama and former President Abraham Lincoln. We have the Illinois connections and then the hovering, dark clouds of war, a nation divided and in crisis, and other similarities that provide a historic link. Drawing a line between the two men — Obama as an African American and Lincoln with his legacy of ending slavery — is as emotionally charged as it is inspirational.
But as we await the historic inauguration of Obama on Jan. 20, there is another parallel with Lincoln and perhaps even one with Sir Winston Churchill. That parallel is awaiting the historic analysis of President Bush.
Bush leaves office with approval ratings lower than the prices you hear some auto dealers offering to hesitant buyers (Buy one at a deep discount and get the next for a dollar!)
I can find only one person on record still being devoted to Bush, and she denies her loyalty has anything to do with the baby gift she received from him when her daughter was born.
This may knock me off some Christmas card lists, but I can see a case for history being kinder to Bush than might seem imaginable now.
Yes, there are any number of better decisions he could have made. Foremost among them would have been to bring a quick and decisive end to the war in Iraq shortly after it began.
And yes, he appears to have been soft on big business, especially the oil and energy sector.
There are areas, though, where Bush has excelled.
He has faced a number of crises that either no president or at least few have had. First, he was commander in chief when the United States was attacked at home on September 11, 2001. He was decisive in his response and showed admirable leadership both at home and abroad.
The nation now appears headed for disastrous financial calamity, the worst since The Great Depression. His administration has been forceful in trying to bring calm and to allocate money to industries fighting to survive.
And the economic woes of this country — just like other monumental, sea-change problems — did not simply appear one day or go away the next. Sure, this happened under his watch but the seeds for our mortgage, home loan crisis and those of the domestic automobile industry collapse were sown long before Bush first took office.
His administration rid the world and a nation of Sadaam Hussein, a despot whose sordid, tortuous crimes against humanity are well documented.
He paved the way for democracy in Iraq and other countries. It is still too early to tell if democracy will stick in any of those places, but people who have never voted are voting and, among others, women have new found rights to education and liberation.
If we begin to expect that any chief executive of anything — be it a country or a Fortune 500 company — cannot make a mistake or two among the hundreds, perhaps, thousands of decisions they make, then our standards have reached the point of ridiculousness.
Looking at Lincoln and Churchill and how they were viewed both in and out of office indicates how difficult it is to pre-judge history’s final assessment of a leader.
Both men were criticized for making quick and sometimes impulsive decisions against the advice of advisers. At times both were pilloried for decisions regarding war.
Lincoln bore the brunt of criticism for war casualties. More soldiers died at the Civil War battle at Antietam in one day — more than 7,000 — than the number American soldiers who have been killed in the war in Iraq. That number is about 4,500, which is not to imply those deaths are inconsequential or without great heartaches to their families.
Lincoln was criticized, as Bush has been, for running afoul of the Constitution and civil liberties. He suspended the writ of habeas corpus, which allows imprisoned persons to challenge the legality of their arrests and there were over 10,000 “arbitrary arrests” while Lincoln was in office.
Bush lacks the eloquence of both men.
Churchill was not only a galvanizing and witty speaker, he also wrote a book that won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1953, “The History of the Second World War.” Lincoln earned immortality with his address at Gettysburg.
We know for virtual certainty that Bush’s speeches will not go down in history. He will not be known for a public display of intellectual depth. What we do not know, however, is how he will be ultimately judged. We know there has not been a foreign attack on our land since 9/11. Is it because of Bush’s policies?
If it is proven he kept our nation safe, we will begin to see him differently as leader.
In fact, only time will tell if he will be viewed as a failure or if, like Lincoln and Churchill, his legacy will grow and expand and shine in the reflected light of history. In the end, it may be he and not Obama found to have more in common with Lincoln.
Richard L. Connor, the chief executive officer and ownership partner of the Wilkes-Barre, Pa., Publishing Co., has been a newspaperman for 40 years. He has written a column for most of his career, and has served on two Pulitzer Prize for Journalism nominating committees.
Comments
Richard Connor is delusional.
While Dumbya says he 'doesn't care' about his popularity ratings, it's obvious he cares greatly about his 'historical legacy'. I hope the soon to be Ex Idiot in Chief has a long life so that he can see himself be rated in history as the truly worst president of all time that he so obviously is. I hope it causes him a great deal of distress and misery. He has truly earned it. I can't think of another time in history except when children succeeded their parents as emperors when such a pathetic nonentity as George W. Bush reached such a high office. (of course, his succession was pretty similar to the historical precedent.)
Nicknames George W. Bush could be called in the future based on historical precedent. 1."the Careless": John I of Aragon (Catalan: Joan el Descurat) 2."the Lame": Timur' (Persian: Timur 'i-Lang) 3." the Unready": Ethelred II of England (Old English: Æþelræd Unræd; Middle English: Ethelred the Redeless) 4."the Simple": Charles III of France 5."the Stuttering and Lame": Eric XI of Sweden (Swedish Erik läspe och halte) 7." the Vain":James I of England (VI of Scots) 8." the Warlike": Albert, Prince of Beyreuth Bernard VII of Lippe Frederick I, Elector of Saxony Frederick II of Austria Herman of Schwarzenberg Michael VI, Byzantine Emperor Svyatoslav I of Kiev
And someday, horses may fly...I can't believe I took the time to read this article. George Bush never understood history, made no attempt to become an historian, and will not be remembered kindly by history. When Bush begins with flawed assumptions about historial American tenets and 'lies' to the people he supposedly serves, then history will judge him accordingly as the American people have.
What??!!! Are you crazy, author? This is the stupidest article I ever saw.
Are you on crack? George W Bush and greatness should not be used in the same sentence.
Mr. Connor must have finished the Christmas egg nog before he wrote this fantasy piece. Facts Sir are what history is assessed by. 1. Telling people to go out and buy things is not decisive action. George Bush's only decisive action was to appeal to people's fears to erode their rights for purposes unrelated to 911. 2. The horrible Saddam an ally of the US until the end of the Iran-Iraq War. The WMD he supposedly had were given to him mostly by the US. Iraq took the focus off of Bin Laden and the Taliban. 3. There is no Iraq War. War was never declared. In the US Constitution was is declared by congress and there was only a spending resolution. Do not distort history and cave to the lie that Bush was a Wartime President. There is an Iraq action that has been a dismal failure, at best. As far as laying the way for Democracy, that is a total delusion. England left Iraq in the 30's in no better shape that we will leave it and that action led to the rise of the Bath party and Saddam. We do not need to wait and see. The only change in Iraq is which faction will rise to be a totalitarian leader. 4. Lincoln did not pervert the constitution for political reasons, but for military reasons. Lincoln had a civil war, Bush had no war and what military action there was happened far far away. No comparisons at all. Bush allowed a major US city to be devastated by the lack of organization in his administration in general and in FEMA specifically. At the time it was misunderstood, but I saw it then as a major turning point in the people's willingness to listen to Bush's lies. New Orleans is still not rebuilt and it is that way by design. When you sober up after your binge on Egg Nog gone bad, you might want to review your memory and dispose of the many falsifications and lies that you still have not identified as such. George Bush may not be the Devil, but he sure carried a lot of water for him, and when you carry water for the Devil you find yourself in a lot of hot water. If there had been a complete spine among the Congressional Democrats things would have been very different and I think there will be another shoe to drop there on how so many Democrats were intimidated into quivering silence.
I agree. Mr Bush made is decisions without watching Gallup Polls and focus groups. He knew what was right and he did what he believed in. He was not a perfect man. No one else is either. He never complained about how he was being treated . Frankly, he did little to defend himself nor did he allow anyone else to defend him either. He stood on his own. He has mostly been un apologetic about his actions and many on the left have treated him with historic disdain. In the midst of all he kept his cheer and never treated others harshly. Many could learn by his example. When the president moves home to Texas he will sleep much better at night. We are all safer and freer for his good works. An Unapolgetic admirer
Bush's legacy will undoubtedly be much different than what people expect. I don't think that it's outside the bounds of reality to see Bush viewed more favorably in the future. I believe that his legacy will really rest with Obama (and possibly the next President after Obama). If Obama successfully executes the War on Terror, and keeps in place even a handful of Bush policies, then I think Bush's stock will go up. On the other side, if Obama is successful internationally, and his success is a result of a complete break with Bush policies, then Bush's stock will go down. It's really not as simple as 'he's stupid, I don't like him.' Good article Mr. Conner.
RE: "What we do not know, however, is how he will be ultimately judged. We know there has not been a foreign attack on our land since 9/11. Is it because of Bush's policies?" What we do know is that we have not had a SECOND attack during Bush's terms. And it was his and his administration's decision to ignore the warnings that they were given BEFORE 9-11.
History may also see pig-like flying from George Bush, or hell-like freezing over.
This article should have been published in Slate.
I actually believe he'll be looked kinder in history than now. Two words, Woodrow Wilson. 1920 was a referrendum on his presidency. Look up that election. 60.3%-34.1% for the other party. When he was re-elected in 1916, the republican party had 215 members in congress, and 42 members in senate. After the 1920 election, the repbulicans had 302 members of congress, and 59 members of senate. That was a swing of 87 congressmen and 17 senators. He was probably more hated than Bush, and he used WWI to take away civil liberties (sound familiar?) Now he's known for winning WWI, and getting women the right to vote (which he held back until he had no choice). So saying history might be kind to Bush isn't THAT outlandish of a statement.
To say that Bush just made "mistakes" is like saying Viet Nam or Watergate were just "accidents". It is not an accident when you value loyalty over competence. It is not accident when you intentionally put people in charge to make government fail to prove your ideological beliefs. Mistakes are totally forgivable, and actually make a person more likable. Bush did not make any mistakes. All of his decisions were well thought out and reasoned. He mad bad, and often criminal decisions, but forgivable mistakes? never.
This article is crazy--- no Bush will not be remembered as anything other that an a liar and thief and war monger who was responsible for the deaths of so many and acted simple when he thought he did a great job-----no he is no Lincoln
This op-ed piece is satire, right?
Thousands of soldiers and hundreds of thousands of innocent dead for no reason. The violation of moral principles that go back to the Magna Carta. Ruinous debt. A federal government hollowed out where key jobs have gone to contributors and their college roommates. A federal bench filled with subpar vindictive conservatives. A major American city left to rot. "Now watch this drive."
Speaking of history, this column will serve as an excellent example for future generations of the type of delusional lunatic who was completely unable to see the truth glaring right before his eyes: that George W. Bush was, is and always will be known as one of the least effective, diffident, incurious, dangerously egotistic and monomaniacal presidents in U.S. history.
This column is the funniest thing I've read in years. Great spin but pure fiction, Bush is our great joke to the world. Too bad the joke is also on us.
He was Commander-in-chief for 9 months BEFORE 9/11 and did absolutely nothing to prevent it. In January 2001, he received the intel from the CIA and FBI that Al-Quaeda was behind the attack on the U.S.S. Cole. He did nothing about it. In the summer of 2001, he received the briefing about Al-Quaeda set to attack the US. He did nothing about it. As for the seeds of the economic woes being sown before Bush came to power, he's been President for 8 years. He ignored all serious warnings about the housing bubble. He removed all meaningful oversight on the business and economic sector. Whatever was sown, Bush made extraordinary efforts to make sure they came to full bloom. He just timed it wrong. He wanted the mess to happen after he left. This author is just another part of the rehabilitate W effort. And just as ineffective as the rest will be.
While I am sure Bush's legacy will be rehabilitated slightly in the future, I believe it will be more along the lines of moving from "worst president ever" to "one of the worst presidents ever". Conner seems to forget that those other presidents he referred to balanced out the bad they did with very significant positive developments that radically changed the United States for the better. The only positive development Bush seems to have left behind is a realization among the American public that we deserve much, much better than the partisan buffoonery of the last eight years.
Someone apparently got hallucinogenic mushrooms on his pizza last night.
This isn't even decent revisionism; it's the promise of revisionism. The truth of the matter is, Bush was a lousy president. He's not suffering for unpopular decisions that turned out right, he's suffering for popular and unpopular decisions that turned out to be complete screw-ups. Even the worst presidents probably made good decisions that were a service to our country. But that does not remove the fact that these folks oversaw catastrophic failures, allowed difficult situations to get worse. Bush's extreme unpopularity are the product of his incredible collection of failures, not a misunderstanding of policies that are suddenly going to become a Godsend overnight.
What about Bush standing by idly while an American city was ravaged, flooded, and looted with no response for days?! There's a "mistake" that didn't even make your article... Whatever Dick Connor is smoking, give me some!
" His administration has been forceful in trying to bring calm and to allocate money to industries fighting to survive." After 8 years of fanning the flames vie deregulation, he calls the fire department and wants to be called a hero. Dream on Mr. Connor. History will NOT be kind to Bush.
Simply going against "popular opinion" does not automatically make an opinion witty or right. This column is a pathetic piece of shit from start to finish. Shame on you Richard Connor. What are you, a 19 year old at Liberty "University"?
And so it begins, the re-writing of history. Fortunately for us, truth is but a Google search away.
Those whose reputation was redeemed later were ultimately judged on outcomes, even if decisions were unpopular at the time. Bush has absolutely no positive outcomes to speak of. Some other president may fix his errors, but it won't be due to any process Bush decided upon.
Rich Connor, former (and alleged) Texas newspaper publisher, is nothing but consistent. He pimped for Bush when Rich was at the Fort Worth Star Telegram and he's still doing it today. I'm sure when he speaks at the Bush "freedom" institute in Dallis, he'll be handsomely compensated. People like Rich make me glad newspapers are going away.Ugh.
What a terrible article: exaggerations, misinterpretations and plain old mistakes throughout. Good old CQ isn't going to extend its subscription list much featuring this twaddle. Exaggeration: That Bush acted decisively after 9/11. Not really. He invaded a country (Afghanistan) that he didn't have to and lost focus on the mission. Bush exploited 9/11 at home by changing his governance, pathetic as it already was, to ruling by dint of fear. Misinterpretation: In the economic sphere with which we are having so much trouble today he early on removed or was simply remiss in exercising his powers of regulation. The neo-cons are trying to tar Bill Clinton with the sub-prime scandal, but it Bush's administration had done its work properly, it simply wouldn't have happened. Mistake: There's no doubt, the level of education among women in Iraq was much higher in 2003 than it is today. The society was predominantly secular in the cities and women were quite liberated. Today the bully-boys of religious conformity have taken over and set women back a century or so. There are volumes more, but who has the time?
There are indeed areas where Bush and Lincoln can be compared, but the only such areas are where Lincoln abrogated civil liberties and the constitution. Bush will be remembered for no great things similar to what Lincoln did, because Bush had no such accomplishments.
I must agree with the other comments. What are you on? Bush was a man to small for the times that rolled over him. He did nothing productive for the future of the United States is how he will be remembered by those generations stradled with his crippling vision of world. Maybe we didn't "mis-underestimate" the man enough. Bush's democratic legacy will be our realization how fragile our's is.
Ha-ha! Bush has screwed up everything. The economy is tanking, the Mid East is in flames, we're more reliant on imported oil, the melting ice cap has opened up the Northwest Passage for the first time in human history, corruption is rampant throughout society, the Justice Dept is a den of crooks, the USA has validated torture for nations around the world, etc, etc. And you think that's great? Bush ignored a warning of an attack inside the USA and went off to chop wood with his dog. Then we were attacked and thousands died. And you think this is evidence of greatness?? Are you dumb or paid off? Is CQ dumb or corrupt for publishing such drivel?
O'Connor! Dude! I wanna check out your pharm supplier. They should have warned you not to ingest peyote and LSD while you're smoking mega-weed.
Ok, Mr. Connor. I'll see you your historical counterfactual and raise you another. Bush is a lousy commander in chief. In his eight years, he's stalemated the most powerful military in history in two dangerous and intractable parts of the world: Afghanistan, where we needed to win and didn't, and Iraq, where we didn't need to be in the first place. Judging purely on Bush's accumulated record of military malfeasance and incompetence (i.e. discounting his malfeasance and incompetence in every other area of his presidency), if Bush had been the president during the Civil War, the Union would have lost. Not only that--he would probably have dragged the war out for an additional ten years, and completely drained the treasury to enrich his war profiteering buddies. He would have guaranteed the nightmare scenario: the separation of the United States into two exhausted and vulnerable countries. In the world outside your pillow fort, Mr. Connor, everybody WISHES Bush had been a little more like Lincoln. But it is also well, I suppose, to be thankful that Lincoln wasn't more like Bush.
Good grief. "We know there has not been a foreign attack on our land since 9/11. Is it because of Bush's policies?" There was one major foreign terror attack in America during Clinton's term. There was one major foreign terror attack in America during Bush's term. So, Clinton was just as able to keep the nation safe WITHOUT doing any of the stuff Bush has done. The truth is that history is going to be even harsher on Bush than folks are today because the more time passes, fewer people will give him a pass on 9/11. Mike
As usual. Connor is a hired hand of the Dallas mafia, i.e. Tom Hicks and John Muse and their HM Capital. Under W they usurped UTIMCO's (University of Texas endowment) fortunes for their own use; bought public assets for pennies on the dollar; etc. All enabled by then Gov. W. As part of his payola, W was given an unearned bonus of $12 million in excess of W's supposed (and unearned to start with) stake when Hicks bought the Dallas Rangers baseball team. Looting and lying. Hicks and Muse also own the company that employes the author of this drivel. So much for today's journalism -- just corporate driven greed. Connor has no shame.
This fails basic logic. cum hoc ergo propter hoc Correlation does not imply causation. The fact Bush had a set a policies and the fact that we have not had a " foreign attack on our land since 9/11" are not necessairly related. It could even be the lack of " foreign attack on our land since 9/11" was in spite of Bush policies. It requires a bit more than this "to prove Bush policies kept us safe" Is this all it takes to write for CQ? Any freshman who has had composition 101 could do better.
Only time will tell if this piece remains the most laughable piece ever presented in CQ, or if this is only just the start of a trend.
Only History will judge, but time may reveal that Richard Connor is a complete moron. See, sounding really stupid is easy!!!! Live in the now....the "We will all be dead" argument" is the only hope for complete failures in their lives.
I would say "Let the propaganda begin", but it began back when Gore won the Presidency & was denied by the Supreme Court.
I am not sure any of the state sponsored historians of the 1930's Soviet Union will be available to spin this portrait of Bush at some future date. Lincoln will always be remembered with regret for the tragedy of his not having dodged a bullet. Bush will be remembered with regret for having to dodged two shoes.
History will say what nobody has the guts to say. That TORTURE will be viewed in history as one of Americas darkest moments. We will all be judged as harshly as Bush because we did nothing. This article is a disgrace to be written by a journalist. Journalists will get as much blame as Bush.
Yeah, and people may also see an image of the Virgin Mary on a piece of toast, but that doesn't make that so either.
Fans of the movie "Idiocracy" will be able to envision how future generations could see Bush as a great president.
This is so idiotic I can barely find the words to express myself. Did you get up in the morning and say, I'm going to be an utter moron today?
Bush's legacy is quite simple; Torture, the advance of facism, treason, redistribution of wealth, cronyism, high crimes, and misdemeanors. Richard Connor is only fooling himself. Probably not very effectively. I have a better comparison for Bush; WORST PRESIDENT EVER. God will truly bless America... in five days.
All of the above comments are so right, how could I do anything but say "Bravo"?! I will add that we, the people, elected this inferior man as president (well, once anyway) so what does that say about the "people"? We are stupid.
Why even bother to run this stuff?
This guy is not just d-delusional; he's certifiable. No truth here, only lies. This is produced with the intent to deceive and will - deceive those too frequing stupid to read or think for themselves. Too bad somone printed this fecal matter.
At the age of 71, I think I'll go along with the recent comments of columnist, Helen Thomas. Regarding George W. Bush, she writes, "History will not be kind to him." Nor should it. The writer, Richard L. Conner, states an oft pointed out fact that since 9/11, we have not been attacked again while GWB was president. But Mr. Conner overlooks the fact that the Bush administration had early warning of the 9/11 attack and did not respond to those warnings. He also overlooks the fact that the "intelligence" used as an excuse to attack Iraq was manipulated. One could go on with an almost endless list of such iirresponsibe behaviors by the Bush administration, but intelligent people already know those facts. And if anything, the American people have learned not to trust the mainstream media. Hopefully that will not, in the future, include the Congressional Quarterly.
"It's easy to make comparisons between President-elect Barack Obama and former President Abraham Lincoln". It's also easy to make comparisons between W and the stinking heap my cat deposited in the litter box this morning. Connor, you are fool and also a poor rhetorician...
No mention of the destruction of a major American city on his watch, due in no small part to the utter and predictable incompetence of his choice for FEMA head? Well, maybe historians will forget about New Orleans too.
Pure. Concentrated. Stupidity. I am blocking this web site such that nothing from this place ever pollutes my web browser again.
The author forgot one more accomplishment: W got opium production in Afghanistan back on track during his two interminable terms!
This is patent idiocy. Bush sat in the White House for 8 years while the "seeds" of economic catastrophe rooted, did nothing, and so history will forgive him? He responded to 9/11 with the "Patriot Act," and that's leadership in time of crisis? His intelligence people cherry-picked us into a war that has cost HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of lives - when you count people, not just Americans - and history will thank him for removing Saddam Hussein? An entire piece of the American heritage - and all the people in it - were subjected to a brutal natural catastrophe with emergency responses not worthy of a 3rd World country: more leadership? And America's standing around the world (sorry, I've lived in Europe for 20 years: I know what I'm talking about) went from deep sympathy after 9/11 to resigned distaste and disgust - still more leadership? And those are only the highlights. History will savage this administration (remember, we're talking about Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, Bremer, Ashcroft and all the rest). Herbert Hoover will look like Lincoln next to George W. Bush.
As usual I am ahead of the curve. I predicted just this kind of reassessment of Bush in hindsight last week and compared him to Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson and whoever the other guy on Mt. Rushmore is. http://jonswift.blogspot.com/2009/01/president-bushs-legacy-one-of-our.html Here are some of the talking points in that piece: * After Hurricane Katrina President Bush kept our cities safe. * After the October 2008 stock market correction there have been no Great Depressions. * After Iraq and Afghanistan took a turn for the worse, President Bush kept us from losing any wars. * After the District Attorney firing scandal, the outing of Valerie Plame and other scandals, President Bush restored integrity to government. * After divisive elections President Bush united our country. * After Abu Ghraib, President Bush reaffirmed America's adherence to the Geneva Conventions and against torture. * After 9/11 Preesident Bush kept America safe from terrorist attacks on American soil.
This guest columnist works for Rove correct?
I agree with the author. Bush will be remembered kindly in history for one thing. He was so horrible, so awful, that he paved the way for our first non-white president. Shouldn't that count for something? Seriously, Mr. Connor is ignoring the truth. I understand the exhortation to let time judge. However, anyone with sense at this point in time knows that Bush has put American in peril - we are on the praecipice economically, morally, militarily - in so many ways. Connor is right that Bush didn't lead us to the edge alone, but he sure gave us a hard push.
Well, if this was meant as Snark, it did not work. Thoroughly disgusting and beyond delusional. you expect us to read crap like this,seriously????????????
Bush did not keep us safe. 9/11 HAPPENED ON HIS WATCH. He and his national security team was warned of 9/11 in August of 2001. RIchard Clark told them that Al Qaeda would be their biggest threat. He did nothing to prevent 9/11. And of course, more american soldiers died in Iraq than in 9/11. He didn't keep them safe. He lied and they died.
For a man who cares about his historical assessment of him, George W. Bush has been the most vigorous defender of secrecy and has diligently worked to prevent citizens, historians and archivists from seeing a full record of his administration's activities. We'll start with the apparently intential loss of several million emails by white-house staff via the use of non-U.S. government accounts several years ago, and migrate to the stonewalling and non-compliance with Congressional subpoenas demanding testimony, and last but not least, the attempted and actual subversion of the U.S. Presdiential records acts that ensure archives and records are available.
And why couldn't Mr. Bush, if he's so smart, w/ his high-falutin' MBA & all, figure out these problems & rip those weeds out of the economic patch on January 21st, 2001? What a sad, pathetic excuse. Why indeed did you bother running this lame joke?
If Bush is great, then every president is great. This column has to be a joke.
Yeah, Bush & Lincoln are EXACTLY alike - who can forget Lincoln's constant verbal gaffes ... or his secret prisons ... or his authorization of torture ... or his deregulation policy & attempt to privatize Social Security ... or his total failure as a wartime leader? History epic fail.
Can I be a nerd? 7000 did not dei at Antietum and you don't win the Noble prize in lit. for a single book. Other than that the author is totally wrong about everything else.
In case you hadn't heard, Ricardo Montalban died yesterday, so "Fantasy Island" is now officially closed.
I thought I was on the CQ Politics website, but I must have landed at The Onion. Right? I've never heard of "Richard L. Connor" and now I know why. Writing this sort of crap pretty much will guarantee you professional obscurity, and, when your "writing" gets attention, it's only going to be negative. Go back to your corner, Richard, and put your dunce cap back on...warm up the seat for good ol' W...he'll be joining you shortly.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Alrighty then...So you're saying that "History" is delusional? I'll grant that history books might be kinder to bush than most of us who have had to endure his failed presidency, but that's only because noone will want to admit that this country was stupid enough to a) elect him or b) re-elect him (point (a) being questionable as you know).
Bush talks and talks about democracy. Does he realize that democracy is listening to the voice of the people? Apparently not, because he takes such great pride in making what he calls "hard decisions" and then gloating that this is what makes him unpopular, that he took this grand moral stand. Problem is, people hate him because his decisions were WRONG and STUPID, not because he did the brave thing against public opinion. He's all for "spreading democracy", but won't listen to his own people. He is a sad, pathetic man.
This is satire, right? The writer cannot be serious. I can't believe anyone could be so wrong and so dellusional.
I would have expected more from this publication. George will go down as the worst President in the History of the United States and you don't need a historian to tell you that.
Fred? Fred Barnes, is that your new pen name?
When the world finds out Cheney orchestrated 9/11 as a way to scare Americans into handing over their civil liberties on a silver platter and Bush went along with it, see how many comparisons to Lincoln you'll find. This author is on crack. We haven't had another terrorist attack because we haven't attacked ourselves!
The real Bush legacy? The Republican Party losing an entire generation of voters. "Young voters preferred Obama over John McCain by 68 percent to 30 percent -- the highest share of the youth vote obtained by any candidate since exit polls began reporting results by age in 1976."
This is intellectual dishonesty of the first order. Or the ravings of a madman.
Yet another front on the Rehab War. How many paid political whores does the Bush team have, each trying to convince us that the last 8 yrs did not play out like we thought they did? The apologists, the revisionists, and political whoring spinners like Richard Connor are doing their best to rewrite history, and pretend that George the Wth was a great man. Well, in a sense he was. He was great at destroying our constitution, attacking our privacy, lying us into a war of choice, using fear as a political tool, and most of all he was great at enriching his closest fiends, while causing real wages for the vast majority to stagnate or fall for 8 yrs. He was great at playing at president, especially during Katrina and 9/11. He was great at ignoring real risks to our country, and pushing the biggest partisan gamesmanship I have ever seen in my short 51 years of existence. He was great at picking the wrong people for the wrong tasks, and giving them the absolutely wrong goals and tools to accomplish horrific damage. Yes, RIchard, Bush was great, just not in the sense that you incredibly try to suggest. Again, I hope you are well paid for this garbage. Otherwise, if this vomit that you spew constitutes your true thinking, I suspect that you will keep some psychologists and psychiatrists quite busy for many years to come. Stark raving lunatics tend to do that.
John T: Careful with those cognates. Ethelred was The Uncounseled, not The Unready. Bush is much more George the Incompetent, appointed by a Supreme Court in a travesty of a decision in order to provide government "...of the people, by the wealthy, and for the wealthy...". How decisive is it to continue to read "My Pet Goat" while terrorists attack us? Rid the world of Saddam Hussein, who wasn't a significant threat to anyone outside of Iraq, and in the process ceded power in the Middle East to Iran by default? Women have newfound rights in Iraq, as the fundamentalists take them away? Suuuuuure. Made the US safer from terrorism by providing the best recruiting and training situation that Islamic terrorists have ever had? Are you on a prescription or do you get them from a street dealer? I'd love to know.
Bush has been pathetic in almost every metric from the errosion civil liberties to lousy domestic policy to insane foreign policy. Don't forget economic policy. However he should be remebered for one accomplishment: under his watch the FDA authorized silicon breast implants, and as a male with a healthy libedo, I thank him. Beyound that, I have one line of advice from Jefferson (George Jefferson, not Thomas), "On the way out, don't let the screen door hitcha where the good lord spitcha".
Bush is the anti-Lincoln: Whereas Lincoln made his way up from the humblest beginnings, Bush was borne into a political dynasty and wealth; Whereas Lincoln always reached out to his opponents and acknowledged the humanity of his adversaries, but demonized and spurned his; Whereas Lincoln was a brilliant articulator of American values, Bush mangles even ordinary English despite the finest education his family name and money could buy; And whereas Lincoln did more than anyone else to solve the great flaw in the republic -- slavery -- thereby bringing the country closer to its founding ideals, Bush has trampled on basic values and dragged our country's name down in the world.
I guess Americans getting attacked in Iraq & Afghanistan doesn't mean anything to the author. What a piece of trash. Maybe Mr. Connor should join Bush and wrap himself in the flag and enlist? How old are you, 11?
This is utter and complete nonsense. Mr. Bush has been an abject failure throughout his entire life. This writer must be in a fantasy world. This writer either does not know or he ignores the intense hatred in this land toward a leader who has failed us in every way shape and form. When I first saw this man and his beady eyes and vacant stare, way back in the 2000 presidential campaign, I knew that if he won he would destroy us, and he nearly has. Since I am a veteran I also agree with others that his failure to know pre 9/11 that Bin Laden was planning an attack on this country, and with our own intelligence warning that planes may be flown into buildings, Bush and that useless and pathetic person joined to him at the hip, Rice ,have been villified from here to eternity. So many of my brothers and sisters and so many innocent civilians have died during the war and occuaption of Iraq, and Bush and Cheney's hands are bloody with that crime
"What is right is not always popular and what is popular is not always right". Bush is a guy who did what he thought was right, often while fully understanding the negative press he would get for it. That's called leadership. Agree with his decisions or not.
This article wil be right at home in The Onion (which is one of the few publications that will miss Bush)
This is the MOST RIDICULOUS column I have ever read. The author must have taken leave of his senses prior to penning this, as history WILL NEVER smile on George Walker Bush, our WORST PRESIDENT EVER.
I concur: bwa hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah! Wait, I have to catch my breath -- apparently Bush and Connor have enriched each other, and so we're directed not to believe our lying eyes as to the folly, criminality, and malfeasance of the Bush administration. Bush is Lincoln? Only as a sick joke.
Hey jim, You do remember that Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, imprisoned thousands of citizens without trial, and suspended congress' constitutional authority, during the Civil war right? Oh and then there was that blockade of the union sates that was technically a breach of international law. Now all this might be informative to someone who had the slightest interest in history and or objectivity. However based on your enlightened claim regarding Lincoln and privatizing Social Security (a program that was signed into law in 1935), seems to suggest that you are interested in neither. Hope and Change right?!
This guy has no idea at all what he is talking about if he's coming out with lines like this, which are complete bullcrap " women have new found rights to education and liberation." Iraq was one of the most secular and women friendly countries in the middle east, mostly because Saddam was a mini-stalinist and didn't believe in religion or sexism. Under the regime women held high office in government, were given preference in university, wore jeans, and unemployed women were forced into education programs (unemployed men were forced to join the army). Now in iraq walking down the road in most places without a Burka is asking to get beated, raped, or murdered. Women have been run out of their jobs in droves, given to men who no longer have army employment. They're told they no longer have places at university. Women in Iraq have been thrown backwards into the dark ages and this idiot author proposing otherwise is horrible and sad. Propaganda more you lying jerk.
He'll be looked at even worse in the future than he is now. He's only looked at as relatively benignly as he is now because of the media's false-balance and conservative bias syndromes and because we are still in denial that someone this destructive and villainous could take over in America. In the future he will be seen not just as a dishonest, overly partisan failure but as a hellbent, destructive, pathologically selfish, diabolical, wannabe revolutionary, anti-democratic tyrant.
It's sad that there are people in this country who, after all that's happened, can still labor under illusions that the king can do no wrong. Can we start calling this a mental illness so people like Richard Conner can get the treatment they need?
Shorter version: I still believe in the awesomeness of Richard M. Nixon.
What kind of idiot reads this self-serving mindless drivel? Oh, that's right. I did. I won't make that mistake again. The bulk of the comments above are absolutely correct, Bush is an abject idiot -- everything he has done has been to the detriment of our country, from the destruction of our foreign relations, the horrible car-wreck of an economy, the destruction of civil liberties and rights as an American, allowing 9/11, inability to react to the devastation in New Orleans, the lies and secrecy, the invasions of three foreign nations (Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Pakistan), unending war, the inability to protect our troops, the torture and scandal at Abu Ghraib, the politicization of the "Justice" Department, the raping of our natural resources, destruction of our environment and natural heritage, etc. etc. The list of his atrocities and failures could go on for pages. If we can thank him for anything, it's for the marginalization of the GOP and the wake up call he's provided to many of the blind sheep following the neo-Cons' rhetoric. Here's to hoping Obama is able to fix this mess and restore some semblance of rational rule to this broken nation of ours.
so, one proof of GWB's "greatness" is that there was no second terrorist attack on the US after 9/11? We know that Bush & cronies' incompetence allowed the first 9/11 to occur. We also know that after the World Trade Center garage was bombed in the 1990s, NY police and FBI investigations (rather than an invasion of some other country) resulted in the perpetrators beingcaught and tried. Please tell me why the author doesn't give then-President Clinton credit for no further attacks during his presidency??? Duh! what an insulting farrago of nonsense and spin this article is. the author is clearly either insane or too stupid to see reality, but can only repeat the same old talking points from other right wingers.
The only way the Chimperor won't go down permanently in history as the biggest U.S. presidential failure of all time is if an even bigger disaster of a president comes along to take his place. Kinda the way he took Tricky "I quit before I get impeached" Dick's place, and Tricky Dick started to not look so bad in some respects. Otherwise? All you have to do is look at all the many and diverse avoidable disasters Bush is leaving behind him, disasters caused by his proudly inflexible, brain dead, ideology, to know how future historians will treat Bush. Bottom line: George Bush utterly TRASHED America just because he COULD, and smirked like the drunken frat boy he still is while h was doing it.
you, Mr. Conner, deserve to have your mouth vigorously washed out with soap and your hands whacked with a ruler. That's the punishment when naughty, ignorant children lie so blatantly to try and keep their friends out of trouble.
"Methinks Thou Doth Protest Too Much" – Stupidest; Delusional; Crazy; Criminal; Lunatic; Least effective; Diffident; Incurious; Dangerously egotistic; Monomaniacal; etc... Two narratives could long out live any person writing on this post: 1) No further attacks on the homeland; 2) Participatory Islam. IF both transpire (highly unlikely) your adjectives will slowly disappear from the history books to be replaced with words which will have most of you spinning in your graves...
Don't you people have any shame? Any at all? After all the misery, you still attempt to portray this disgrace of an American as great? Shame on you all. You enabled this criminal - you are as much to blame. There is blood on your hands along with the Criminal in Chief. And you will pay the ultimate price - God does not smile on murderers, thieves, liars, and cheats.
Successful troll is successful.
I absolutely love the tizzy this article has sent so many of you into. The rhetoric here gives me hope for how history will treat this period of history given the author's examples of the treatment of Lincoln and Churchill by their contemporaries and how history sees them now. That may just be GWB's finally victory over his detractors, no one will record what they said or did over the last eight years for posterity. I think it's funny.
Wow. wtf is going on with CQ? History takes a longer perspective, to let short term reactions and issues fall away, and look at long term significance. So, maybe if we have strong feelings about someone, history will tend to moderate those feelings. But you can sum up W's impact on the nation in one word - TREASON. Lying to the country, to justify taking us to war against a country that hadn't committed a single act of aggression against us. WMD, a sure thing, a 'slam dunk,' with cold hard proof in hand, he and his spokespeople said. But none. That is a lie, and the result is a needless war, and the name for that is treason. Now, he's not being impeached for it, not because it's not worth impeachment, but because the country is 1) at war, for whatever reason, and 2) so tired of impeachment already thanks to Clinton and the witchhunt that went after him. The times were right, and the situation was manufactured and taken advantage of, and W is getting away with it. But the facts are clear. The reason he wasn't impeached, convicted, and sent to jail is just the kind of heat of the moment passionate overreaction stuff history is so much about letting go of. The other stuff, you can write off to incompetence. Katrina and New Orleans, 9/11 not being stopped, the economy, the budget deficit, trying to get America back on its feet by telling us to go out and spend more? our prestige in the world community, the support we can count on from our allies - all that can be written off as losses resulting from a man who was simply over his head. We don't have to hate W for that - we elected a buffoon, we bought the argument that the President should be the kinda guy we'd want to have a beer with, so we got what we asked for. But invading Iraq is treason. History won't miss that one the way we have. As for admiring him as a man of principle, that would make more sense if his principle were sound. A man who stands by his principles, even when he's unpopular for it, can be called brave, by those so inclined - but you've got to see that somehow, in the end, he was right to do so. W has stood by his principles, alright, but they've lead us to nothing but disaster. he's stubborn, in the face of being unpopular for it, in defense of - idiocy. History's not going to look back gratefully for politicizing the AG office and Justice Department, for intentionally polarizing the entire country, for stonewalling Congress, for blowing the balanced budget he inherited out of the water, for weakening legal and financial oversight throughout the government. Other than being a hero to the cultural conservatives - though even for them, he didn't manage to get rid of Roe v Wade, or even seriously try - I don't know why anyone would even call him competent, much less magnificent. The only reason I can see to write an article like this is to inspire people who don't normally contribute much to these forums, to write in finally. Well, you've got my attention, and here's my two cents' worth. But keep publishing this kind of absolute drivel, and you'll lose any respect as a website for serious political thought.
Bush's legacy will be that he bleeped up this country so much at home and abroad that Americans were willing to look past race and elect the most competent person president.
And the Iraq war was necessary, and those people in Katrina did not drown, and no one was tortured. Bush lovers are daydream believers.
Quit comparing the Messiah to a truely great President, the One can't hold a candle to ABE!!!! And Thank YOu President Bush for keeping our country safe for the past seven years!! The One will not have a clue how to keep us safe!!
The only real question of this sort is where does GWB rank in the list of worst presidents. Since say Harding, probably the candidates to consider are Hoover, Nixon, and W. Though there are many others to look at including Johnson, Reagan. Question is how do you judge? On the economic front, Hoover is worst, W 2nd worst, and Nixon 3rd (though he was very bad--gold went from $35/oz to $435/oz!). War wise, Nixon was probably worse since he killed more people than W, started a secret war (Cambodia) and that lead to the destabilization and Khmer Rouge; we know about Bush, and of course Hoover didn't stop Hitler when he could have. On the environmental front, Bush is probably worse since the greenhouse gas thing will probably end up destroying our ability to predict weather and that will destroy countless buildings, food supplies, transit systems, electric grids, and the fabric of life. Hoover just gave us the dust bowl. Nixon started the EPA and Earth Day and banned DDT, but also napalmed & herbicided Vietnam. On the constitution, Nixon burglarized the Democrats headquarters, created Cointelpro, and probably would have ended the constitution if he could have. He and Kissinger overthrew an elected socialist government in Chile (where they had a long history of elections) and thereby set off decades of non-electoral wars between the left and right in the Americas because the US opposed free elections. In Africa, Nixon supported the facists in Portugal against independence and sided with Apartheid. Bush with all his attacks would be second worst and Hoover not bad. Domestically, Hoover had Hoovervilles; Nixon had the draft and the student killings; Bush had Katrina And amazing isn't it--we're still here! As a leader, Bush was clearly the worst speaker and least educated. Internationally, all three were despised. So who is worst?
Richard, you need to put the crack pipe down and deal with reality. George Bush will be seen as Lincoln-like when angels with brass trumpets fly out of Dick Cheney's arse.
With any luck Bush will not be remembered at all, but doubtless he will be as decent people the world over wake up in a cold sweat.
Just because Bush was president during 9/11 does not mean that it should be credited with a sort of positive approval. History may simply blame him for the entire debacle and his handling of it. There was much positive acclaim and very little scrutiny. History will look at this more in depth.
I find a great deal of enjoyment in reading comments from the rabid Bush haters. Liberalism is a disease spread feverishly between the likes of the intellectually devoid. But hey, we can't always get lucky and have our presidents getting blown in the oval office or keeping company with people who hate this great nation. Get off your mother's couch, walk up the stairs from the basement, shave, and try getting a job. I'm tired of working 60 hour weeks to pay for you to sell your link card for cigarettes and alcohol.
Wow. What an absolute disrespect you must have for future historians.
It appears Mr. Conner fell out of an idiot tree and hit every branch on the way down. Unfortunately appearances can be deceiving, the reality is that Mr. Conner is probably a paid propagandist for Bush in the vein of Armstrong Williams, Maggie Gallagher, and Michael McManus. Oh and let's not forget James Dale Guckert who masqueraded as a conservative columnist under the pseudonym Jeff Gannon representing Talon News. I think George Bush will be remembered as one of the most despicable Americans who ever lived. He is a psychopathic, mass murdering momma's boy and the world would have been so much better off if he had never been born. I am also taking a solemn oath to never visit this site again. What idiocy.
There's no guarantee everyone on earth won't be stricken with amnesia.
Connor writes: We know there has not been a foreign attack on our land since 9/11. Is it because of Bush's policies? If it is proven he kept our nation safe..." Mr Connor, Bush exposed America's military weakness to the world i.e. that it is a sledgehammer that cannot deal with urban warfare, guerrilla warfare, and mountain terrain warfare. Bush destroyed America's moral authority to influence military-related world affairs. Bush ineptitude showed the world that America was unprepared for domestic catastrophes (New Orleans). Bush's actions lead to the deaths of 4,000+ military personnel, and the wounding of many thousands more.
Interesting comments here about the US President. More evidence I suspect that Western civilisation is totally screwed and will eventually implode. You creeps, move to Iran, please. Maybe we'll stand a chance.
I doubt that history will consider Bush a great president, rather strongly in fact! However, we've had presidents who worked overtime to keep African Americans in wretched bondage, created the Great Depression, and led to a Civil War that divided the country and led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that a President who caused a civil war or one who facilitated the actual enslavement of an entire race might rate a little bit worse than George W Bush. Matt
BDS is alive and well, particularly among people who haven't bothered to seek out the facts.
I suppose that the author is right, in a sense; there will certainly be "history" that describes Mr. Bush in exactly the way he suggests. Unfortunately for him, it'll be precisely the same sort of "history" that denies the Holocaust and extols the glories of Imperial Japan. The rest of us will remember the man as he was—the President who took the world's only remaining superpower at the peak of its economic and diplomatic strength and turned it into an economic disaster best known internationally for reversing a policy against torture that dates to the nation's founding.
We DID suffer another attack -- anybody remember anthrax? I guess that means we can expect history to treat Bush just like we have -- as the worst president we have had!
Lest we forget: Bush had never once been successful prior to his appointment as President. He had never once run a successful company, and his stint as Gov was mediocre at best. He was praised for his reformation of the school system, and that praise was based on, wait for it... doctored statistics! I love how his defenders all praise things that have no bearing whatsoever on his ability, like being able to laugh or not care about polls. So did Saddam Hussein, what's your point?
Bush is a great man. Most of the people posting here don't desrve him. They do deserve the next guy, though.
G Bush the younger will be known for GREAT things such as great corruption and great lying and utter disdain for the law. The country has fallen into great ruin on his watch, but at least he made money and will be greatly looked after by the same clowns that brought him into power. Yeah just GREAT
Agree with writer completely. Both Lincoln and Churchill were relentlessly villified by the public and media. Political cartoons from Lincoln's era show a monkey, depictions of a retarded man, and he was ultimately assassinated by his political opposition. Churchill was voted out of office before the end of WWII. Having rescued his island nation from the Nazi's, he was summarily dismissed. This panel of commenters are pathetic examples of the failures of US public education. We now have the TV version of President that we deserve.
I don't think this article is awfully far from the mark. Ten years from now everyone will be asking themselves what all the Bush-hatred hysteria was about. People won't be making these silly statements about him being the worst president ever. In twenty years, he'll be seen as a pretty good leader. After that, it's anyone's guess. I don't know if he'll ever be seen as Lincolnesque, but there is some real greatness to the man that will become more appreciated once the mob-hate has a chance to simmer down.
Wow! The Bush haters are fired up. What are they going to do without him to blame everything that has ever happened to man? There will come a day, when National Security information is declassified. There will come a day when we look back at the symbolism of Bush's presidency really beginning with planes crashing and people dying in NYC, to his farewell speach on the day when a plane crashed in NYC and no one died. There may even be a day when we look back and realize that this poor speaking Texan who kept us safe, was replaced by a well spoken 2 year Senator who has never been in charge of ANYTHING. Blame Bush now all you want, but it's Obama's game now. I bet he may publically denounce Bush administration tactics on the War on Terror, but I doubt he'll really change any. Wiretaps, Guantanamo (Executive order to close, sometime, probably 2016), harsh interogation tactics. Obama said he would keep us safe, we'll see. George Bush did.
You folks who simply cannot abide a different interpretation than the one you prefer exhibit extreme contemporaneous bias. The author's point is that time will remove that bias and a truer picture will emerge. He does not say it will exalt Bush ... just that it might. Paradigm shifts are never apparent to the masses as they occur. If the Islamic world finds itself in a democratic realm in 50 years, there is no question Bush will get credit. The very negative reaction to him today will emboss that image.
Mr. Conner, are you trying to fool us or yourself? Everyone else: the reason why Al Qaeda didn't attack us again is because of an internal decision made by certain leaders within the group not to attack "The Far Enemy (the US), but "the near enemy" (Iraq). Why go all the way to America to kill 3000, when you can kill 4500 Americans in your backyard?
Richard Connor is the most delusional columnist to ever appear in CQ. GW is the most delusional president this nation has ever had or ever will have. Even if he thinks he did what he thought was right in his own mind, common sense and hindsight show clearly that most everything he did was NOT right. He has not made the country safer, and anyone living in the future will also realize this even more after all his papers that he wants to hide at his daddy's library are released to the public, including any declassified ones. Lincoln and Churchill were considered truly great within a mere decade or less of their absence from government. As long as there are people alive in the future who are now alive, GW will never enjoy such honor. By then his stain of dishonor will be indelibly etched to last throughout the eons. Mr. Connor, I am ashamed to say that I was raised in and attended college so close to the town in which you somehow run a newspaper, lest I be tarred with the same brush which has tarred you. To see what history's true perception is going to be, read today's column by Dan Froomkin. He took the nation to a war of choice under false pretenses -- and left troops in harm's way on two fields of battle. He embraced torture as an interrogation tactic and turned the world's champion of human dignity into an outlaw nation and international pariah. He watched with detachment as a major American city went under water. He was ostensibly at the helm as the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression took hold. He went from being the most popular to the most disappointing president, having squandered a unique opportunity to unite the country and even the world behind a shared agenda after Sept. 11. He set a new precedent for avoiding the general public in favor of screened audiences and seemed to occupy an alternate reality. He took his own political party from seeming permanent majority status to where it is today. And he deliberately politicized the federal government, circumvented the traditional policymaking process, ignored expert advice and suppressed dissent, leaving behind a broken government.
I think how history treats Bush will depend on whether the enormous treasure expended on Iraq will lead to the development of more moderate, stable democracies over the long term. As Iraq goes, so will go Bush. But if stability develops permanently, his having liberated a great people from a ruthless, totalitarian state will be a well and honored accomplishment. He indeed pushed the envelope on civil liberties, asking the question whether freedom could remain absolute in the face of vile and ruthless terrorists, and I think you will see some of his answers to that question repealed, but the more important ones becoming a perment part of our national security infrastructure. Personally, I believe we are safer than is he hadn't been President. Finally, he may not have been an eloquent public speaker, an affliction suffered by his daddy, but he always treated the office of the Presidency with respect and conducted himself decently and honorably. That in and of itself is an accomplishment, and I believe he erased much of the tawdriness and drama of the Clinton Presidency by his sheer decency. It's time for the baton to pass, and everthing seems to move in cycles, but I think you may actually see the President be held in higher regard, particularly as we begin to contrast his resoluteness with the incoming administration, which is showing lots of signs of Carteresque squishiness, I hate to say. We'll hope for the best and watch, it will be interesting.
This man was an enthusiastic proponent of TORTURE. How can anyone possibly besmirch the office of President of the United States and the values of our fair land worse than this? History will demonize hime. He will be remembered as one who was cut from the same cloth as the world's most evil tyrants.
26,000,000 Iraqis now drink from the fountain of freedom, albeit a trickle -- but it's a start. They need not fear rape rooms or mass graves. Remember, because of the delays in the Supreme Court forcing Florida to follow Florida's constitution, Bush 43's staff was not up an running for almost six months -- only a few months before 9/ll. Unbiased historians recognize prior presidents; beginning with Reagan did not address radical Islamist threats, most notably Clinton. And tons of WMD -- yellow cake uranium were quietly moved out of Iraq to Canada up to last year. We also have a well educated cohort of future leaders coming up who are schooled in the islamofacist worldview, having learned to exterminate them in Iraq and Afghanistan. What I will remember about Bush 43 is how he failed to finish strong, essentially bankrupting our country and enslaving our children to pay unfunded mandates. We are $53 trillion in debt if we do not force all entitlement programs to adopt a pay-as-you-go payout. The left's view of Bush 43 is practically an alternate moonbat universe. No one can produce one citizen whose privacy was violated by the foreign surveillance program; not one, in a nation of 300 million souls. Regardless, I wish Mr. Obama all the best. If he slashes entitlement spending, lowers tax rates enough to bring manufacturing back, and returns us to a positive trade balance, he'll be great. If he leads us to a socialist plantation, where high taxes destroy our economy -- it will just be ironic; a person of color enslaved us to our government. Bush 43 shoved freedom down the left's throat and they can never forgive him.
Is this a parody of Stephen Colbert? It cannot be a serious submission. I think you have been punked.
The authors point is, not surprisingly, completely missed by the ignorant readers. His point, you dolts, is that history is objective, whereas rabid, mouth-frothing, histrionic, uneducated lunatics such as yourselves are not. You unwittingly illustrate his point perfectly!
Interesting read. Especially when considered with the comments. The sheer scope and breadth of vitriolic hyper-partisanship in the comments almost guarantees that the much more moderate and centrist position of the article is close to correct. From the first name calling to the more nuanced arguments in the middle, most commenters here should brush up on their fallacious arguments. Link for ya: http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html
Historians, unlike the commenters here, have to offer substantive analysis.
@ Adam T on top: All very good suggestions. I'd like to add a few more of my own. Wasn't there a Hapsburg or a Bourbon called 'the Sick?' Also, there's William I of England (Guillaume the Bastard). We should make a poll.
January 1, 2090 From an article in the online-only newspaper New York Times. It's hard to imagine this now, but while he was in office, George W. Bush was considered by many of his critics the worst United States President in history. The 44th US President, liberator of 60 million citizens in Iraq and Afghanistan, focal point of a unique dual-nation national holiday on Bush's birthday, and the man responsible for the birth of democratic ideals which have now spread throughout the Middle and Near east, suffered abuse from critics in the media comparable only to that suffered by America's 16th president, Abraham Lincoln. Although their leadership styles where vastly different, and they were two very different kinds of men, they shared similar circumstances in that they presided over wars that were initially backed by large majorities of the American public who then turned upon them both with unprecedented savagery when the wars dragged on inconclusively for several years. Virtually alone, both men prosecuted their wars to ultimate victory, with enormous long-term successful consequences for all three nations. Lincoln, of course, had much the harder job. The American Civil War ultimately cost the nation 650,000 lives, 2% of her population, an equivalent of 8 million lives today. The total American deaths in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan stood at just over 5,000 at the close of major hostilities in 2009. It became public knowledge at the end of his term in office that Bush personally visited with the families of fully a quarter of the war's fatalities, personally composed and signed letters of condolence to the families of each soldier lost, and quietly visited the wounded in military hospitals hundreds of times. This exacted an enormous emotional toll on the 44th president, and almost certainly contributed to his death of heart disease three years into the one term-presidency of his successor, Barack Obama. The addition of Bush's visage on Mt. Rushmore to that of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, and Ronald Reagan is expected to be completed in time for the celebration of Bush's 150th birthday on July 6th, 2096.
If Lincoln Had Been Bush LINCOLN: Hey! Brandy and Cigars! Get in here! [enter Ulysses S. Grant] GRANT: Yes, Mr. President? LINCOLN: You're fired. Got a new guy here says he can win the war with 2,500 men. GRANT: But that's ridiculous. LINCOLN: Why do you hate the Union?
I think this article was meant to be published in The Onion. It's THAT funny...
Richard Connor doesn't know a thing about Iraq, does he? So women now have " new found rights to education and liberation." HUH? Bagdad was a functioning cosmopolitan city and its women already had "rights to education" and "liberation" ...many are now forced to wear Burkas. The Taliban is now ascendent in Afghanistan. George Bush is a WAR CRIMINAL.
To add to Adam T's list of proposed nicknames, I'd like to add: President Skidmark (as in the 'Skidmark in the ceramic bowl of Life' He's the Puerile Postadolescent Pissant, and he's Stubborn, Stingy and Stupid; Smarmy and Smug. HiYo Skidmark, awaaaaaay! and good fucking riddance!
Yes, history often softens the view of a particular person. However, certain facts remain: 1. Bush & Company lied about WMD in Iraq and then had the gall to make a skit joking about not being able to find them. 2. Bush & Co encouraged torture as a policy of the United States. Any other national leader would be on trial in the Hague for this -- in fact, we recently sent a leader off for trial for encouraging and promoting torture. 3. As a result of the war in Iraq, the United States went from a budget surplus to a 10 trillion dollar deficit. I could go on. But these are just a few examples of Bush' legacy. Whether one is conservative or liberal, I think we can all agree that this is not the same nation as it was on January 20, 2001. Too much has happened. Whether for good or for ill, history will judge. However, I hope that we, as a nation, are willing to listen and heed the lessons of history.
Did Mr Connor take Canadian Tylenol by accident?
see kids, this article is the author's brain on crack. should have written the story for MAD magazine, no, wait....it IS MAD magazine.
Believing that History will vindicate GWB like it has Woddrow Wilson is delusional simply because WW still ranks as one of the worst. The only thing going for WW, is he tried to make peace with the League of Nations but he still mucked it up at home. GWB mucked itup at home and abroad.
The only correct historical parallel for Bush would be an 8-year-old who was head of state.
September 11 , 2001 happened while Bush was President. Considering how incredibly INEPT his administration was, I have no doubt they ignored all 9/11 warnings. Condolezza Rice ignored the memo about terrorists using airplanes as weapons of terror. Also, Bush also kicked out the UN weapons inspectors, who were on the ground and DOING THEIR JOBS in his RUSH TO WAR in Iraq. Proof? Google: "U.S advises weapons inspectors to leave Iraq"
Those here who agree with Mr Connor's post should sign with their real names i.e. Laura Bush and Britney Spears.
The attack on the Cole was during clintons watch and he did nothing, Bin Laden openly stated that 9/11 was hatched long before W. took office. Fact remains, we have not been attacked since, now it's time for this used car sales man obama's turn. Lets see what happens. My guess, after he cuts the defense budget by 25% we'll get hammered and you people will still find a way to blame W.
It took a while for me to stop laughing, then to recover from the urge to vomit. At least Lincoln's war had a valid reasoning. At least Lincoln's speeches are still being quoted (and not with derision). At least Lincoln was fighting for the civil rights of a group of oppressed Americans.
This article has been misplaced.It belongs in "the Onion" or "National Lampoon."
You guys will never understand that for 7 years there has been no terriosit attack. Yes Iraq might have been a mistake but no attacks on USA soil simce 9/11.
Give me a break. The guy's a stupid frat boy that was always out of his depth. What amazes me was how dumb the American electorate was to be conned twice. You forget that today's media will be recorded exactly as it happened forever. No more softening of peoples views as they forget what he did. Iraq (and many other issues) will be around his neck for all times. The sad thing about all this is that no one alive today will see the completed repair of all the damage he caused. Idiot.
seroiusly. DOES NO ONE REMEMBER THE ANTHRAX ATTAKCS? i know, when an article is so filled with epic fail as this one it is hard to know what to say or where to being, but since the right wing dead-ender trope is going to be "no more attacks" let's be sure, every time we see it, to point out that there was a series of anthrax attacks in 2001 after 9/11. those attacks terrorized the country and killed several people. so it is factually incorrect to say there have been no more attacks. of course, we could also go into the rise in terrorism worldwide etc. but let's skip that. if you are a right winger and you think there have been no attacks since 9/11 on american soil you are fouling the memory of those who died from the anthrax.
Deja views. Getting very tired of the usual from Bush apologists about no domestic terrorism since 9/11, although I do sympathize with the difficulty in coming up with something credible. Fine, let him score one whether or not he personally deserves full credit for this. But do not leave out of the picture Al Qaeda's territorial expansion and legions of converts that are a direct result of Bush's policies and actions. What a gift to Bin Laden and his ilk, who played him easily. When that chicken finally comes to roost I hope credit is properly dispensed.
The writer is delusional and seems to believe that everyone but him is wrong. This is such a minority viewpoint that it merits no more consideration than stories of space aliens. Well, at least it supplied me, and hopefully others, with a good laugh. Bush, and his Daddy stepping up to his defense with characteristic recalcitrance, declare that little Georgie will "hold his head high." OK, sure he can do that. It just requires a few muscles in the neck and is no reflection on results. I suppose all of this nonsense we hear from Bush regarding the lack of subsequent attacks as proof of success is what the one who was warned about attacks by planes in advance yet did nothing would do to save face. Thank God for Bush and the space aliens that he must also have thwarted. Thank God we are leaving this era of make-believe. I'll could this blog post as yet another bit of humor that we will look back upon as an example of how far the delusion of some went. That legacy will withstand the test of time.
having Republicans in the family, i can attest to the selective amnesia spewed out in "belief" of the greater glory, lol. can't choose your family, but love them anyway. History will be written by the winners, as is always the case. The Axis of Evil started with Reagan and ended with Bush. to hear these brain dead, The Invasion of the Body Snatchers, i am sure the spin of the "Real American" wing of the Republican party will continue until Hell freezes over. and with Climate Change helped along by the biggest polluter on the plaent. So sayeth George Bush. the right is really gone. but they have very consistent in their lunacy. it's all faith based, so they don't have concern themselves with "facts." lol Hatred, bigotry, torture, spying, endless war, war is peace and those wonderful values that George Orwell wrote about in "1984" are the guideposts to Republican behavior, party thinking and actions towards those "who" dare to "think. The Republicans were good at the game of using fear and division to "divide and conquer" the ignorant Americans who choose not to think for themselves. as one poster said, years of dividing white against black, poor against rich, et al has been such a successful ploy, that eventually those on the "wrong" side united against the Republicans and their "real and right thinking Americans. united those not included in the Republican America to elect a Black man president. the work of Rove, Rush, Atwater, George Wallace, Strom Thrumond, Trent Lott, Tom Delay, Norquist actually help elect Barack Obama. there may not be justice for those who died in Bush's wars or got forclosed upon, but the irony of their hate and evil backfiring so a Black would be elected President, gives me pause. there just might be a God afterall. i can sleep at night now, knowing Bush and the Axis of Evil can't leave America lest they be arrested for War Crimes in countries where the Law is practiced, not subverted.
Revisionism? No, this is outright future fiction. It is in a special section in the library where Reagan's ghost and Bush 1 hang out and blame each other for the LAST fiscal disaster brought on by a two-term Republican.. Lots of room on those fantasy shelves for Bush's delusions.
Perhaps the most problematic part of O'Connor's entire argument is that the seeds of many of the problems which Bush is leaving us, and Obama, with were rooted in the past. Every president inherits problems. The test is what he (or someday she) does about them. Buchanan inherited many of the seeds of what became the Civil War. He did little to solve that looming crisis. That is why he is often rated as the worst U.S. President. While Bush is unlikely to be viewed as worse than Buchanan (not a defense of Bush, but an appraisal of how high Buchanan set the bar), he is likely to be judged as far close to Buchanan than Lincoln, whose entire presidency was devoted to addressing the problems which Buchanan would not. Obama is not Lincoln, the current crisis is not the Civil War - and history will judge whether he did the hard work to solve the problems which he is inheriting today. If he leaves office without doing so, then, like Bush, he will also deserve our condemnation. Let's hope that his talk of hard choices is followed by the making of those hard choices.
POST A COMMENT
Oops! The following errors must be addressed: