Well, the other day in civics my fiercely conservative teacher was debating with a student and the student mentioned something about people believing that George Bush did a bad job in office. Personally I agree, but that is of little importance to this thread. In response to the student, my teacher said that history will judge him differently. My question to you all is this: Will history judge President George Bush differently? Try to state your opinion free of partiality. Also, try to think about this as if it is 50-100 years in the future at least. Note: This thread is not meant to discuss matters such as President Obama, President Clinton, or anything else other than how President Bush will be remembered.
Although everyone referred to him as "that monkey twat with his finger over the big red button", I think he did a good job. He was always stereotyped for being a bad president, but he did nothing bad. However I'm British, so my opinion is pretty meaningless.
Good thread. Honestly, the media blew his presidency and how bad it was out of proportion. He ****ed up the national deficit from the war, which is what I think he'll be remembered as. However, if Iraq becomes an ally of the US and a stable nation, then he will be remembered much more kindly. If Iraq goes to crap, then he'll be remembered as what I mentioned above.
I think that is very unfair to say. Most non-memorable presidents were in the 1800s and the lack of memorable quality is mostly contrived from unpopular policies, 4 year terms, and overlooking issues at hand. Obviously the few presidents we had in the 1700s were in times of great change, which sets them apart. Abraham Lincoln was President, of course, during the civil war, making him famous. James K. Polk greatly expanded the borders of the United States by winning the war with Mexico and through supporting the Texan Revolution. Presidents in the 1900s were of course notable because we remember their names as they were alive in lifetimes of our grandparents. Both Roosevelts were instrumental in growing and keeping intact our nation. The civil rights movement changed everything in the presidencies of JFK and LBJ. I mean, a lot of **** has happened. And presidents as of late have become much more involved in world affairs. So unlike early presidents I do think that he will be remembered. If that is as a competent leader or a basketcase, I don't know. BTW 2000th post lawl
i think bush did made some good decisions early in his term, then declined somewhat... but overall he wasnt terrible, just a decent president. which is what i think people will think of him as in the future.
George Bush was a decent president, but who am I to judge? He did nothing special, but he did nothing to go unnoticed. Like Jimmy Carter, his presidency had more downs than ups. Like his father, he's going out in the middle of a war he started. But, like all other presidents, his actions mattered. He could have done worse, and he could have done better. Did the Iran hostage crisis not affect the way many Americans vote for future presidents? Didn't watergate? Whether or not he did a bad job in office is indeterminate, at least, as a whole. Can we blame him for the war on terrorism? If it was truly a war on terrorism, would it not be considered to be started by the 911 attacks and other various threats? Was the United States's part in WWII not caused by Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor? Really, since the president can't declare war, shouldn't we blame the "bad" parts of his time in office on his whole administration, and not just him? Maybe many of his actions were out of stress and/or fear. Propaganda. Peer pressure. Not to say this was the cause, but can any of us tell what was behind any of his actions? No. So, I think none of us, individually, are to judge how he did in office. Of course, I think this can be applied to any administration or president. Don't think I'm defending him, because I'm trying my best to see both sides of the argument, but I don't think we're to judge. Your teacher was wrong, but so was your classmate. Only presidents of the future, present, and past, will determine whether George Bush did a good or bad job, because really, it's the way the that president compares with the other presidents' actions that determines if that president did a good job. How? Well, lets say who ever comes next (after Obama) does well. We'll say that person serves two terms. Now let's say that in his first term there is a European military conflict. Now, if this president stays neutral in the situation, this is America, so it's fine, no problems. This causes his re-election, leading to his second term. But what if in his second term, he is pressured by his administration into interfering, maybe due to a lack of interest from other nations, similar to GWB's interference in the middle east. If this interference lasts longer than it should and becomes pointless, is it considered bad or good? Bad, because it's a pointless waste. If this interference lasts longer than it should but is necessary towards ending the conflict, is it considered bad or good? Mostly, it would be considered good. This would be because if no other nation is stepping up, wouldn't it be wrong to not step up and give the rest of the world an example of a good nation? Maybe, but it depends on the after effects. If it leads to a bad economy but a better world, then it would it be good? Say it effects the US in no way shape or form, but no end is seen, then is it bad? Now, what matters is the state of the US at the end of the president's time because this result is what will be compared to get the answer. This will decide how well the president did. In my honest opinion, George Walker Bush was decent president. More opinions than mine will be and have been made. Until 2013, the judging is at a stand still. So, yes, history will be the judge along with time. George Bush did not do a bad job. George Bush did not do a good job. Yes, the judging is over for now and the results for this time around are in. George Bush did neither a good nor bad job as a president. He was just where he should be, right in the middle. There were worse presidents, and there were better, but all presidents fall in line.