• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bush attempting to rewrite history of "disastrous presidency"

Maximus Zeebra

MoG
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2006
Messages
7,588
Reaction score
468
Location
Western Europe
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Bush attempting to rewrite history of "disastrous presidency" - RT

Russiatoday said:
The University of Virginia has announced it will put together an oral history of Bush's presidency. It will work together with the George Bush Foundation and is planning around 100 interviews with leading members of his administration.

Thom Hartmann said:
Rather than a presidential library, like most presidents have, which basically just chronicle the presidency, George Bush is going to be spending several hundred million dollars to hire so-called scholars to rewrite his legacy and to re-invent the history of his administration


Unlike Hitler, Bush gets to rewrite the history of his leadership, to hide the bad parts and enhance/create the good parts. Astonishing.
 
Yeah right. Like that will ever work.
 
So Thom Hartman blames the Fort Hood terror attack on Bush, to?

How? I'd love to hear this justification. How is what happened at Hood, the fault of G.W. Bush?

What a joke. Hartmann is a vile, partisan eco-terrorist.

His radio show is garbage.
 
“asked for international cooperation from police agencies, labeled them criminals, arrested them, had them tried and put them in jail, the 9/11 victims would have closure and Muslims around the world would not only not hate America and be afraid of it –as so many of them do right now – but we would probably see a renaissance in Islam.”

That's cute.
 
So Thom Hartman blames the Fort Hood terror attack on Bush, to?

How? I'd love to hear this justification. How is what happened at Hood, the fault of G.W. Bush?

What a joke. Hartmann is a vile, partisan eco-terrorist.

His radio show is garbage.

Thom Hartmann is the smartest man on the radio.
 
In this day and age, he can only do so much to remedy historical perceptions, and there will be a wealth of material available to cross check his own information. On a scholarly level, I'm not overly concerned.

My only concern I suppose would be those who lack foresight and rely strictly on those materials for their interpretations, but as someone who has studied history I know that multiple sources are required in all endeavors.
 
This is pure Granola Liberal BS, the "Story" is all speculation and this former psychotherapist needs to tell us which method he used to see into the hearts and minds of those who are going be contributing. Is it that he's know psychic or maybe a remote viewer. Bush was not a popular person and I didn't care for him at all. Truth is he is the reason I left the Republicans 7 years ago. as Thom might speculate. I believe a number of people in the Bush administration have some pretty unflattering things to say regarding Bush policies and actions.
One thing for sure until a week ago we were relatively safe from terrorists under Bush.

Oh My God! Did he just say the wacko Army Major wouldn't have gone all Islamo Terrorist if Bush were still President? No I'm saying that under Bush none did that is just a fact. Does it make him better or smarter than Obama? Hell no but the little mentally challenged downs syndrome 6 year boy old next door is. He just lacks Obama's education and line of Shiite and ability to lie convincingly .

I will say that the way Obama is trying to kiss Muslim butt is inviting trouble. Then one day we can all set around and talk about how Obama's trying to rewrite to show he was not the stupid idiot amateur he's been up now.
But until it happens I'll just wait and see what does happen next on amateur hour.
 
So Thom Hartman blames the Fort Hood terror attack on Bush, to?

How? I'd love to hear this justification. How is what happened at Hood, the fault of G.W. Bush?

What a joke. Hartmann is a vile, partisan eco-terrorist.

His radio show is garbage.

The Fort Hood attack is no more the fault of Bush than 911 was the fault of Clinton.
 
Thom Hartmann is the smartest man on the radio.

Thom Hartmann is the smartest progressive/liberal on the radio.

Fix'd


Also, he's still just an opinion jockey like all the other radio personalities. That's not saying he doesn't know what he's talking about.
 
The Fort Hood attack is no more the fault of Bush than 911 was the fault of Clinton.

Some people speculate that preventive action by Clinton could have prevented the 911 attacks. And to be honest, even as much as I dislike Bush, 911 was MORE the fault of Clinton than Bush(hopefully).
 
Some people speculate that preventive action by Clinton could have prevented the 911 attacks. And to be honest, even as much as I dislike Bush, 911 was MORE the fault of Clinton than Bush(hopefully).

Way more culpable......
Clinton floundered hard with regard to OBL & AQ....
The Clinton administration had the opportunity to take OBL out of play....
EPIC FAIL!....:doh
 
This is pure Granola Liberal BS, the "Story" is all speculation and this former psychotherapist needs to tell us which method he used to see into the hearts and minds of those who are going be contributing. Is it that he's know psychic or maybe a remote viewer. Bush was not a popular person and I didn't care for him at all. Truth is he is the reason I left the Republicans 7 years ago. as Thom might speculate. I believe a number of people in the Bush administration have some pretty unflattering things to say regarding Bush policies and actions.
One thing for sure until a week ago we were relatively safe from terrorists under Bush.

Oh My God! Did he just say the wacko Army Major wouldn't have gone all Islamo Terrorist if Bush were still President? No I'm saying that under Bush none did that is just a fact. Does it make him better or smarter than Obama? Hell no but the little mentally challenged downs syndrome 6 year boy old next door is. He just lacks Obama's education and line of Shiite and ability to lie convincingly .

I will say that the way Obama is trying to kiss Muslim butt is inviting trouble. Then one day we can all set around and talk about how Obama's trying to rewrite to show he was not the stupid idiot amateur he's been up now.
But until it happens I'll just wait and see what does happen next on amateur hour.

I'm sorry...what was that? :rofl

I just have to ask, do you know anything at all about the world outside of your house?
 
Your source doesn't give any reason to believe their opinion that any "rewriting" will occur is based on anything real.

Mere opinion, and not even authoritative opinion.

Sounds like a preemptive campaign to discredit anything that anyone could possibly say about anything...unless they are saying something negative.
 
Bush is certainly not the worst president we ever had, that title still goes to wilson. That said, he will be the worst so-called....small government, less government interference, fiscally responsible conservative president in history.
 
Unlike Hitler, Bush gets to rewrite the history of his leadership, to hide the bad parts and enhance/create the good parts. Astonishing.

There is another way of looking at this, which is that he gets the opportunity to tell his side of the story, with all of the constraints and influences he had to consider. The fact that most of what gets told about his presidency is from the counter-propaganda perspective of those who oppose him ideologically and who try to discredit all that he did demands a biography from Bush's perspective. There are good reasons for the things he did that he is excoriated for.

This pre-emptive attack to discredit his history is just prepping the ideological battlefield.
 
One thing for sure until a week ago we were relatively safe from terrorists under Bush.

You mean he kept us safe after he failed to keep us safe? Was that like John Kerry voting to support funding before voting against it?

9/11 and the anthrax attacks all occurred under George's watch. Besides until an official investigation is complete its too early to call this terrorism. Also by historical definition terrorism is usually against civilian targets.
 
Way more culpable......
Clinton floundered hard with regard to OBL & AQ....
The Clinton administration had the opportunity to take OBL out of play....
EPIC FAIL!....:doh

Do you think the source of financial support was relevant to the 9/11 Hijackers? Do you think Osama Bin Laden is the only rich Arab in the desert?
 
Way more culpable......
Clinton floundered hard with regard to OBL & AQ....
The Clinton administration had the opportunity to take OBL out of play....
EPIC FAIL!....:doh

When was this again? Another one of Mansoor Ijaz's stories about Clinton being handed Bin Laden even though the Saudis claimed they never had him. In reality Bin Laden came onto our radar as a threat to the United States in 1996 Clinton had 4 years to catch him. Bush had 8 so Bush was the one who had no excuse. When the Cole investigation was finished and it was determined that Bin Laden was responsible Bush had a choice to act but didn't.
He had a shot at Torah Borah and Bush outsourced it to the Northern Alliance who messed up. He had a chance and failed. Also it is alleged that the CIA met with Bin Laden in Dubai in July 2001 when he was in a hospital undergoing treatment. He wasn't taken into custody then.
 
I'm guessing you are not much of a student of history. Primary sources are useful and limited at the same time. I own many memoirs from Presidents and historical leaders and they are damned valuable for a resource.

Please read more books.
 
In this day and age, he can only do so much to remedy historical perceptions, and there will be a wealth of material available to cross check his own information. On a scholarly level, I'm not overly concerned.

My only concern I suppose would be those who lack foresight and rely strictly on those materials for their interpretations, but as someone who has studied history I know that multiple sources are required in all endeavors.

The thing that is most concerning (though not altogether surprising) is the idea that history is to remove the perceptions of the main actors altogether simply because they are perceived as biased. Of course they are biased: historians will be analyzing their actions and thoughts! Because George Bush is unpopular, he and his administration should not be allowed to give out their story? That would produce some of the weakest historical scholarship imaginable.

It's difficult to stress the level of idiocy of the original post.
 
Back
Top Bottom