Will History Be Kind To George W. Bush?
Published September 21, 2006
For a change, George Bush set his eyes on the future. Chit-chatting with a select group of seven conservative journalists in the White House last week, the president made known in his usual cock-sure way how he would like to be remembered fifty years from now. He said, “I firmly believe that some day American presidents will be looking back at this period in time, saying, ‘Thank goodness they saw the vision.’”
This is so not the George W. Bush we have come to know over the years. The George W. Bush we know loves to ride his toughness made in Texas, loves to demonize his critics, and loves to give a damn about what other people think. No one has ever accused him of being a visionary, so I presume he took it upon himself.
Bush is thinking long-term; nothing wrong in that, except he's screwing the present.
He further expressed his hope to leave behind "…something — foundations and institutions that will enable future presidents to be able to more likely make the tough decisions that they’re going to have to make.”
This sounds like he's been trying to make the job of the future presidents easier. That is, how to take tough decisions in tough times without breaking a sweat, which certainly has some merit because the future guardians of America don't have to look any further than the 700+ signing statements of the current guardian.
There is a minor problem though. Chances are good that soon after he retires from the presidency, "patriotic" citizens might be frantically searching for the remains of the foundations and institutions — and perhaps, restoring them back to what they once were.
That would make Jefferson happy.
To sum it up, Bush is convinced that his rapidly backfiring policies that embody the "toughness" at the cost of core American values will somehow stand the test of time and someday, even if that day is half a century from now, the much vilified president will get the due he thinks he so rightfully deserves.
I would be foolish to speculate whether history will be kind or harsh to George W. Bush. Scores of visionaries had been routinely hung and left to dry in their times for what they thought was the right thing to do. And Father Time has only vindicated their positions and the principles for which they once willed to be the last men standing.
I cannot help but to think Bush could not be more wrong in his assessment.
Never before in history has someone been so eager to wield the executive sword and cut down the foundations and institutions. He believes that's a good thing. He perhaps forgot that his legacy is etched on the abuses of the constitution and the laws. How could he be possibly vindicated later? What could possibly go wrong in the future that could prove him right?
There are pretty good reasons why people around the world look up to America when their own existences are at stake. It's no coincidence. America holds an envious record of filtering the right from wrong, and perhaps, more crucially, installing the appropriate checks and balances to protect the “rights" from the future possibilities of contamination.
In his six years of presidency Bush has left the entirety of the American soul in jeopardy. He's failed, time and again, to distinguish his doctrine from what is truly American. Fifty years from now, I could still be proved wrong, but somehow I doubt that.
- Will History Be Kind To George W. Bush?
- Published: September 21, 2006
- Type: Opinion
- Section: Politics
- Filed Under: Politics: Government, Politics: U.S., Politics: War and Terrorism
- Writer: Q Bit
- Q Bit's BC Writer page
- Q Bit's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
Matt: You're right. It was an error. Actually Bush administration has compared the critics to Nazi-appeasers.
But thanks for pointing it out. It would soon be corrected.
If there is any justice, the term "W. Bush" will be comparable to that of "Quisling" in the future: one who betrays his position & the country he had taken an oath to serve, for alien standards.
About Jefferson - the Constitution was designed as a system of checks and balances, in the future people will also ask, where were the checks on Bush's grevious abuses of power? It speaks of a failure of the Constitution as well, that the other two branches did not provide an adequate counter-force to the executive.
The judiciary is trying, but getting no backup from the majority of the notorious "rubber stamp GOP congress" - more shame be on them. They should go down in infamy for their duplicity as well as their craven knuckling under to this administration.
He will go down as the worst president ever. I am thankful though because his dumbness has gotten me more involved in politics than I ever would have been. The guy failed at every business he attempted to run, and almost every prediction he has made, whether it be, 9/11, katrina, social security or iraq has turned out to be absolutely wrong. Need I say more. He doesn't have a clue, he can't figure out what to do currently and yet he claims to have a vision. That is laughable. He predicted that the repubs. will hold on to the house so that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside because I'm sure like all of his other predictions that one will prove to be wrong also. F*ck Bush.
Let us all hope to hell you're absolutely dead-on right, Dee.
You're all wrong. Bush is the greatest president of our time. If I were any more of a man, I'd make sweet love to him until the sun went down.
Oh, how I love my Bush!
Hmmm...I'm sure you do.
History will recognize Bush as the first world leader who understood the true global threat of Islam and the third world thugs...alas we have to live with the drone of the short sighted left wing small minded people who believe like John "Hey! I just found out Im a Jew" Kerry that if we have "summits and meetings" the bad guys will just go away.
How fucking pathetic
Justoneman - you are pathetic.
Stop being so scared pussy. There is no global threat of Islam taking over. They got us on 9/11, deal with it. There is absolutely no global takeover threat or any evidence of it. Oh yea, don't forget all those what do you call them, ummm, shit.. oh yea nukes that we have. So if the threat really was as dire as you make it out to be we would use them stupid. And when king asshole bush has to keep reminding us of the threat, the threat cannot be that bad, sorry I don't buy your scare tactics / bullshit / revenge fueled views or his. Wake the f*ck up.
Good for you, Dee. Thanks.
@Nancy #3, 5 @Greg#4 , dee #6
I think he sincerely believes he's serving the country well--and certainly better than anybody who could have been in his position under the same circumstances.
He believes he needs to be tough because the situation calls for toughness. Which is right to an extent.
But he also believes only by staying the course he could remain tough, and if he changes course, he would be considered soft. That's a BIG mistake.
Unfortunately, the president, who's so willing to fight the war on terror, is equally unwilling to consider other viable options and not giving up the American values to fight the same war.
The constitutional checks and balances haven't failed yet--and I don't see them failing in the future. They have been restricted to an extent. And that's a clever ploy of the administration.
The fault doesn't lie with the courts, because courts have seen limited action. Gonzales et al are good at avoiding the courts as much as they can within their powers.
This administration has certainly been successful in delaying the justice but I don't think they can deny the same. Think how long did it take for the courts to come down hard on Guantanamo.
But the Congress has failed, and has failed miserably. That Bush has gone largely unchecked is mostly because of the Congress. They played the role of a loyal partner in crime. And it's a shame.
Bush is at fault partly because of the company he keeps--when your top advisors are Cheney and Rummy, you are inviting nothing short of a disaster. Also, he never, ever, gets the correct information. He doesn't read the newspapers, nor does he watch the news channels (FOX excluded). He reads Shakespeare, but he doesn't have the time to read Paul Krugman. His way of information gathering is flawed in the core. He gets misleading and selective information and gets to hear what he wants to hear.
Connect the dots and you will realize why his decisions have always, been so irrational, and don;t seem to have any sort of correlation to the actual facts.
@Just One Man:
You are so wrong. True enough that Bush understands (hardly the first though) the evil of radical Islam. But why is it special? Every Tom, Dick and Harry gets it.
However, understanding a threat is one thing and dealing with it is another. Bush has no clue how to handle it. Bombing a country to democracy could hardly be considered a smart move.
How would you feel, if you were an Iraqi, even though you were fighting Saddam all your life?
How about letting the Taliban off the hook and sleeping with their sponsor--Pakistan? How does that make sense to you?
Talking tough is easy--go to any street cornet in NYC or LA or Chicago. Getting something done is not--and George Bush didn't get anything done.
That's the sad truth behind the hundreds of billions being spent and thousands of live being lost.
He keeps bad company, he refuses to surround himself with any except 'yes' men, he doesn't read newspapers (or anything else intellectually or morally/ethically challenging that might make him have to think & reassess himself & his policies), etc. ... what he believes is immaterial. Schizophrenics believe aliens are out to get them, but that doesn't make them right. Bush CHOOSES all these bad options. He chooses them deliberately, because he is arrogant, weak, and profoundly ignorant in the worst senses of those words. He may indeed truly believe he's the 2nd coming of Christ, the Elect of God, but fact attests otherwise, and we don't have to wait for the assessment of History to see & know this. He's a failure, as he has been in every other aspect of his life, and he's already on record as the one of the worst presidents we've ever had. All the attempted re-writing by W & his suck-ups, all the wishful thinking in the world, can't and won't change that.
Dee...OK we have a Nuke arsenal..who do you suggest we use them on?
All I know there is a huge Islamic Temple less than 2 miles from my house ...and I live in New Jersey...just give me some lead time befor you fire I need a head start...
Ironic the liberals think that we can fignt WWIII with Nukes..wake up you fools
Dubah will be ther reason Islam hates us. By the time he is out of office, he will have put our country a trillion TRILLION dollars in debt, all things counted up, more than any other president in history. He has in his wisdom set all of our social programs back and has hurt so many families it's down right evil (veterans denied disability--can you believe that??, citizens denied, over taxed, over billed, billed twice or three times for the same debt, etc, children and teens cheated of their education, etc.)
His presedency started with lies ('hanging chads'?)and it will end with lies. He will die with lies on hias lips. He IS a devil.
He will be looked back on in a hundred years as rthe stupidest man to be president, the worst president ever.
Hopefully, if the country can hang on long enough,the next presidents can start to vigorously repair the damages ol' drunk Dubah has done.
Greg - I don't think you can call it a failure of the Constitution that the other two branches failed 'to provide an adequate counter-force to the executive.' Oversight of the presidency is within the powers of the Congress as declared by the Constitution, but the extent to which it is exercised is dependent on the will of Congress to do so. The Constitution provides the checks, but it is up to those in power to ensure that they are effective.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/53196)
Excuse me, but what critic has President Bush EVER compared to a Nazi?