Previous post
Tomorrow, George W. Bush will cease to be our President as Barack Hussein Obama is sworn in as our new President. Expectations of an Obama presidency aside, what will George Bush’s long-term legacy be?
You can’t talk about George Bush’s legacy as President and how he will be remembered without mentioning the savage way he was treated by the media and by liberals over the past eight years. Their hatred of him ran so deep, a psychological disorder was created: Bush Derangement Syndrome. They didn’t just hate his policies, they hated him. They hated the way he talked, they hated his “cowboy swagger”, they hated his personality, they hated his family, his openness about his faith, everything. There was nothing about President Bush that didn’t infuriate BDS sufferers. Every mistake, every misspeak, every misstep was trumpeted across the MSM and liberal blogs everywhere. The treasonous NY Times went so far as blaring secret strategy information on fighting the war on terror across their front page, undoubtedly putting the lives of servicemen fighting at risk. And why? Because of the hatred they felt for the man issuing the orders. Anything Bush did that was good was also only grudgingly acknowledged at best, usually promptly followed by a quick reminder of why it was still bad.
History, I think, will see him differently.
I think history will see President Bush as a man who did what had to be done. He will be seen as a principled man who was more concerned with doing what was right than doing what would make his poll numbers rise. He was a man faces with the worst attack on American citizens on American soil in history, and he reacted immediately with courage and strength.
One of the most telling things about how Bush will be remembered is how our military sees him. The troops overwhelmingly love him. And his respect for them was more than evident. The amount of time he’s spent with them and their families has been more than past Presidents have, indicative of the obviously deep admiration he felt for them.
While Bush’s presidency was far from perfect, he was a good man who did what needed to be done to keep his people safe. History will see that. Likewise, the rampant unprofessionalism in the media will not go unnoticed.
As the years pass, Bush will be remembered as a good President. His present unpopularity will not last. Just as Truman left office unpopular and disliked, in time the tides will change.
I’m sure that over the next four years, we’ll come to miss him.
When evaluating a president historians will weigh Bush’s domestic and foreign policies. He will be given credit for attempting to install a peaceful democracy in a part of the world ruled by petty, irreligious dictactorships for the last thousand years.
However domestically he is an abject failure precisely because he betrayed every principal of conservatism. He increased every form of goverment spending, refused to protect our borders, refused to fight back against his domestic enemies and left his party and nation adrift. His management (along with our mutt of a canidate) was directly responsible for the Socialist-In-Chief we have in office now. Goodbye and good riddance.
Just the thought of how Obama talks makes me miss President Bush. W spoke with a genuineness that, even when I disagreed with him, I felt compelled to hear his thoughts. When H speaks, I feel as if I am about to hear, “let me speak with my sales manager……”, just before I get up and walk out of the car dealer.
I cannot even begin to imagine how this man, will manage an administration. The only thing of consequence I can even remember him saying was when he rose in the Illinois Senate to speak against a Born Alice Infant Protection Bill. Other than that, as it has been well documented, he votes present. Can it be that you can ride the fence on every issue, save one, and serve well and faithfully as President ?
Thank You and Godspeed, President and Mrs. Bush
Tomare Utsu Zo says: “You can’t talk about George Bush’s legacy as President and how he will be remembered without mentioning the savage way he was treated by the media and by liberals over the past eight years.”
It’ll be white washed and forgotten. The Dis-Educated public will never look beyond its sit coms to read the history to know the truth.
He encouraged us after 9/11. He made the world a safer and freer place. Let the ankle biters have their moment. George W. Bush is a man for all seasons.
“The treasonous NY Times went so far as blaring secret strategy information on fighting the war on terror across their front page, undoubtedly putting the lives of servicemen fighting at risk.”
That is utter and complete bullshit. Cassy is indulging in yet another of the fantasies of the wingnut right.
Tell me, Cassy: exactly what did the New York Times publish that you claim is “secret strategy information on fighting the war on terror”?
What I most admire about President Bush is that he made his decisions based on what he thought was right, not how it would play before a focus group.
The war on terror strategy (especially the invasion of Iraq) was a high risk, high reward one that we’ll not know the outcome for years. If Iran can eventually be brought to bay, the Bush Doctrine will be an unqualified success.
Meanwhile, buckle up. The Hope & Change Express is pulling out of the station; it’s going to be an interesting four years.
btenney says: Meatbrain: Where have you been?
Cassy: For several years I have been referring to George bush as the “Greatest Living American,” so I could enjoy the spectacle of Liberal Brains ex-ploding while simutaneously soiling Themselves.
The fact that I have done so in jest, doesn’t mean it isn’t true.
Meatbrain, you mean that publishing the name of a terrorist interrogator even though the government begged for the NYT not to isn’t undermining the president?
Or what about publishing details on how the government was monitoring communications between terrorists, once again, after the government asked them not to publish it.
The NY Fishwraps reason for publishing? Oh, well “the public has a right to know”. Yea, who cares what lives are put at risk, or who you are screwing over, just as long as they can say how evil Bush was.
Meatbrain is an appropriate name for you.
Melinda P says: President Bush will be missed! We will never know what he has saved this country from until it is written in history. He had a lot to clean up after the Clinton administration. Hold onto your hats because we’re in for a bumpy 4 years of “Hope and Change”.
Isn’t it interesting that Cassy cannot substantiate her own claims?
“Meatbrain, you mean that publishing the name of a terrorist interrogator even though the government begged for the NYT not to isn’t undermining the president?”
Provide documentary evidence that Deuce Martinez’ name and role as an interrogator was a “secret”.
“Or what about publishing details on how the government was monitoring communications between terrorists, once again, after the government asked them not to publish it.”
George W. Bush himself publicized the fact that the US was monitoring communications between terrorists, well before the Times article. What the Times revealed was that the wiretaps were being performed in violation of US law.
Any other bullshit you want to post, “Instinct”?
meatbrain: You have stated,
“Isn’t it interesting that Cassy cannot substantiate her own claims?”
I ask why should she even need to ?
Even the NYT admits they told a secretWhen Do We Publish a Secret?
See, they say it right in their own Editorial headline.
Why did they do it ? Because they wanted a scoop ?
You don’t even support that story.
Where, pray tell, is the NYT stating they printed this because it was “in violation of US law.”? I missed that part !
So, show me the bullshit in that !
Cylar says: I already miss President Bush, and at this writing he has only been out of office a few hours.
I am really going to miss having principled, adult leadership in the White House. I can not forget what a massive improvement he was over his predecessor, and how happy I was back in 2000 when the election was finally called for Bush. Unlike Clinton, President Bush did not try to be all things to all people. He didn’t promise the moon (the way Obama has) and then utterly fail to deliver.
Yeah, he wasn’t much of a statesman. So what? He was a plain-spoken man who said what he meant and meant what he said. I’ll take that over someone like Der Schlickmeister every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
On election night when Gore originally conceded, I actually got up off the couch and did a little dance in front of the TV, and I didn’t care what my girlfriend or my roommates thought of it.
That sense of clarity is I liked best about Bush. Love him or loathe him, agree or disagree, you always knew where the man stood. During his first term, he said, “My job isn’t to nuance.” That word was in vogue at the time, and I remember thinking how glad I was to have a leader who simply did what he thought was right and wasn’t concerned if his policies were popular or not. He clearly believed that the only popularity contest that mattered was the election itself.
Sure, he made a lot of missteps. He spent too much, he wasn’t serious enough about securing the border, and after Iraq and Afghanistan I was really hoping he’d knock over at least one more Middle Eastern dictatorship before heading back to Crawford at the end of his 2nd term. At this time in 2003, I really hoped we’d see American GI’s patrolling the streets of Tehran or Damascus by now.
America….you will always get the leaders you deserve.
Obama, lotsa luck, pal. You promised the moon and the stars, and you’re going to deliver the empty space in between them.
And President Bush, Godspeed, and thank you for your service to this nation.
Don’t worry — BDS has found a new target in Sarah Palin. I hear those credentialed mainstream journalists who parachuted into Wasilla are still rummaging through her garbage for old expense reports and birth records.
I suspect BDS sufferers will be no more successful with her than they were with Joe the Plumber — Ohio’s Direct of Family services and two of her senior managers were fired for violating his privacy.
As for Pres. Bush’s legacy, I’ll wait for historians more reputable than Katie Couric to assess it. Godspeed, and welcome home.
“Where, pray tell, is the NYT stating they printed this because it was “in violation of US law.”? I missed that part !”
Yes, you did… because the NYT didn’t say that, and neither did I.
Obviously, reading comprehension is not a valued skill in Greater Wingnuttia.
Gredd says: Okay, so the word hasn’t gotten out yet.
‘The three-judge court, which hears rare appeals from the full Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, addressed provisions of the Protect America Act, passed by Congress in 2007 amid the controversy over Mr. Bush’s program of wiretapping without warrants. It found that the administration had put in place sufficient privacy safeguards to meet the constitutional standards of the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches. Because of that, the company had to cooperate, the court said.’
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/washington/16fisa.html?_r=1&hp
There, now that that’s settled, what else can we talk about?
meatbrain Says:
…What the Times revealed was that the wiretaps were being performed in violation of US law.
meatbrain Says:
…“Where, pray tell, is the NYT stating they printed this because it was “in violation of US law.”? I missed that part !”
Yes, you did… because the NYT didn’t say that, and neither did I.
Obviously, reading comprehension is not a valued skill in Greater Wingnuttia.
meatbrain, you, in your very own comment stated “What the Times revealed was that the wiretaps were being performed in violation of US law.” How did the NYT “reveal” without printing ?
So, A: the NYT did not say it, but
B: YOU DID !
You had better learn to read, before you complain about someone else’s comprehension.
Greater Wingnuttia ? – How very clever you must feel !
Your question, idiot:
“Where, pray tell, is the NYT stating they printed this because it was “in violation of US law.””
You asked me this because you think I made the claim that “the NYT stat[ed] they printed this because it was “in violation of US law.””
I made no such claim.
You’re too stupid to understand what you read, Stone.
Your answer, imbecile:
Defies logic.
If only you could understand what you, yourself, have typed !
It is very hard to read with your butt squarely upon your shoulders, though, so I do understand your struggles.
It is you that is too stupid to understand what you read. It is you that is too stupid to engage in any argument without resorting to ad hominem attacks. (that means since you are wrong, you call people names and attack them rather than their position or their argument)
Go back to your cave moonbat, and leave those that can discuss disagreements like adults, alone !
Sorry, Cassy
I am done with this moron, and will cease.
Thank You and Godspeed, President and Mrs. Bush and Vice-President and Mrs. Cheney
That may very well cause an aneurysm in all nearby moonbats
Gredd says: Meat, you said this:
“What the Times revealed was that the wiretaps were being performed in violation of US law.”
The article I linked above shows this is incorrect. Thus the Times printed the article out of spite for the Bush administration because they sure didn’t do it to expose some kind of illegal activity going on (cause it wasn’t illegal!).
In other words, you were wrong. Move on (dot org) already and stop spreading the, as you say, ‘bullshit.’
Gredd says: You’re arguing against a court ruling? And using someone’s ‘opinion’ as evidence? AAAAAAAAAAAAAahahahahahahahahahahhahahaha!!!!!!!! You’re now not only wrong but just looking silly. I think I’m going to stop taking you seriously because you honestly can’t be at this point. But thanks for the laugh this Monday!
“You’re arguing against a court ruling?”
No, dimtard. I am merely pointing out that the ruling does not mean what the NYT article claimed it means. Since you didn’t bother to read the ruling itself, you are merely relying on the NYT reporters opinion as your own “evidence”.
“Is it really that hard — especially for people who pretend to be experts in this controversy — to tell the difference between (a) whether the President had the authority to eavesdrop on Americans in violation of a Congressional statute and (b) whether the Congress is constitutionally permitted to enact a statute authorizing warrantless eavesdropping? Apparently it is hard, because hordes of right-wing advocates, including those who claim to be “legal experts,” are falsely claiming today that the FISA court did (a) (namely: found that the President had the power to order warrantless eavesdropping in violation of a statute), rather than what the court actually did: (b) (found that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit Congress from legalizing warrantless eavesdropping).”
You are too lazy to read the ruling, and too stupid to understand what it says. That does not change the fact that the ruling had nothing whatsoever to do with Bush’s warrantless wiretapping, which violated the law as it existed at the time.
Gredd says: You’re right, sorta. I’m not reading… your response(s). You’re a tool and out of touch with what’s real. I’m feeling a tad sorry for you and your inability to ‘get it.’ But thanks to our new president, I have ‘hope’ that you’ll someday ‘get it.’
False. Since you reply, you have read my responses. You’re a liar, Gredd.
And you’re a moron: You comment on a court ruling that you clearly have not read, and you make claims that simply are not supported by the content of the ruling.
26 Comments