• 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!

GWB's Legacy

What will be GWB's legacy?

  • A great and inspired world leader

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    27
  • Poll closed .
Again, I never said it wasn't split before he was President. It wasn't as defined and sharp as it was after 9/11.
By what standard?

Like I said earlier, I think the split came about when Bush tried to use 9/11 as currency to push for an unrelated war.
Was the country 'united' when we went into Iraq?
 
A lot of the crap he did that was truly despicable will likely get white washed or completely forgotten by the majority of historians. This generally happens to all presidents. What Bush will get defined by is Iraq and Afghanistan. But any decent historian will note those as tainted given how Iraq at least got to where it was.
 
History will show GWB in a positive light.
Anyone that considers him a faulure needs to look back no nurther than Truman...

Some people are describing his as a combination of the failures of Truman, Nixon and Carter and other failures.
 
Take off your own "BDS" glasses...maybe you will see something other than what you want to see. I made the poll options with 1 basically 100% in favor of Bush, 1 100% against Bush and the other three that fall within.
What are your views of his legacy and how don't they fall within any of the options provided....please enlighten us.
I don’t suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome. I did not suffer from Clinton Derangement Syndrome either. In fact I’m proud to say I’ve managed to avoid, through use of my intellect common sense and most importantly maturity, irrational fixations or obsessions with any POTUS that has served in my lifetime. As you have been proudly vociferous in your opinions on Bush, it is just a tad too late for you to claim any objectivity on this topic whatsoever.

Which is amply demonstrated by your “poll”.

Here are the other three options you posit as “falling within”:

A man who accomplished much but failed to live up to his complete potential

A man who may have had good ideas but failed to accomplish much

A man with lack of ideas and accomplished very little


The Bush legacy will not be decided on “he had great/bad ideas” or his “potential” anymore than any prior POTUS legacy is. This is the problem with “polls” generated and created by proudly partisan posters with an axe to grind. This poll would be a crappy poll regardless of who the POTUS is IMO. You don't like it? Send along your address and I'll mail you some Disney themed tissue paper.;)
 
Last edited:

I don’t suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome. I did not suffer from Clinton Derangement Syndrome either. In fact I’m proud to say I’ve managed to avoid, through use of my intellect common sense and most importantly maturity, irrational fixations or obsessions with any POTUS that has served in my lifetime. As you have been proudly vociferous in your opinions on Bush, it is just a tad too late for you to claim any objectivity on this topic whatsoever.

Which is amply demonstrated by your “poll”.

Here are the other three options you posit as “falling within”:

A man who accomplished much but failed to live up to his complete potential


A man who may have had good ideas but failed to accomplish much

A man with lack of ideas and accomplished very little


The Bush legacy will not be decided on “he had great/bad ideas” or his “potential” anymore than any prior POTUS legacy is. This is the problem with “polls” generated and created by proudly partisan posters with an axe to grind. This poll would be a crappy poll regardless of who the POTUS is IMO. You don't like it? Send along your address and I'll mail you some Disney themed tissue paper.;)

Give me a break...your own arrogance exposes your own "syndromes":doh....
 
I would say a complete and utter failure, period.
 
Controlling the damage from one failed Democrat policy after another is Bush being a failure?

Nice logic. :lol:

What damage did he control?

The deficit wasn't big enough?
 
Aside from huge tax cuts, reversing the left's policy of groveling and surrendering to every foreign threat, etc., sure. :roll:

It all started with that lefty Reagan retreating in Lebanon.
 
aquapub said:
Nice logic.
Odd, I like your conjecture.
I did not say why he was a failure so I think you need to reevaluate your logic.
I would ask for an expanded explanation before you assume.
 
Odd, I like your conjecture.
I did not say why he was a failure so I think you need to reevaluate your logic.
I would ask for an expanded explanation before you assume.

You have the worst avatar ever.
 
ROC said:
You have the worst avatar ever.
Thank you for adding to the thread.
I will use your reply to add a bit more about my comment.
This item does not make Bush (Jr.) the worst but, an item worth looking at is his unnecessary Iraq War. It was odd to see Bush push so hard for the war when all of his reasons were false. I would like to point out that Bush alone did not fail the people, our representatives failed us by not stopping him and our media failed us by parroting the governments jingoism toward Iraq.
 
What damage did he control?

The deficit wasn't big enough?

He responded to the catastrophic eight-year Democrat non-response to al Qaida, the abysmal failure of Democrat leadership in New Orleans, the Clinton Recession, Democrat-created fuel shortages, and the left's obliteration of the housing market by pressing for free market reforms at every turn, some of which worked, as with the tax cuts.

That's controlling the damage. And Democrats, who, like you, fell over themselves with outrage about the spending that was necessary to clean up after repeated Democrat policy disasters now propose spending increases that dwarf anything Bush ever did. So please, spare us the phony posturing about fiscal responsibility.

;)
 
Last edited:
It all started with that lefty Reagan retreating in Lebanon.

:liar

Peddle your partisan misinformation elsewhere. Those of us who actually bother to inform ourselves know full well that it was Democrats who drafted a joint resolution demanding the full and immediate retreat after the bombing in Beirut, and Republicans who resisted their nauseating cowardice.

Every Democratic presidential candidate and every Congressional Democrat from Tip O'Neil to Joe Biden scorned Reagan for every second that he did not bend over for Islamic terrorists. And when they finally twisted his arm into doing it, he still insisted on bombing their terrorist camps on our way out, which the liberal treason machine also naturally excoriated him for.

Try again. :roll:
 
Odd, I like your conjecture.
I did not say why he was a failure so I think you need to reevaluate your logic.
I would ask for an expanded explanation before you assume.

You didn't have to say why. The fact that you would mischaracterize a president frantically jumping through one hoop after another to keep the economy afloat while Democrat policy failures decimate it at every turn as him being a "complete and utter failure" speaks for itself.

History will remember Bush for introducing democracy to the primitive savages of Islam and for being the last road block to America being flushed down the toilet of Socialism.
 
Thank you for adding to the thread.
I will use your reply to add a bit more about my comment.
This item does not make Bush (Jr.) the worst but, an item worth looking at is his unnecessary Iraq War. It was odd to see Bush push so hard for the war when all of his reasons were false. I would like to point out that Bush alone did not fail the people, our representatives failed us by not stopping him and our media failed us by parroting the governments jingoism toward Iraq.

So much BS misinformation, so little time.

1) Let's deal with your last falsehood first. An excerpt from my book: "Lexis Nexis has 622 media articles on possible civil war in Iraq from the first two weeks of the conflict alone." Just as with Afghanistan, the news media started comparing Iraq to Vietnam, calling it a quagmire, and filtering out anything but the very worst news on it since the very beginning.

On planet Earth, that's the exact opposite of the media failing to stop him by parrotting his jingo.

2) The reasons we went in were not false. Of the many reasons we went in, all were validated entirely except for the WMD claim, which was only validated in the most important parts-there were in fact hundreds of WMD discovered on the ground and countless others sent to Syria.

3) Unnecessary Iraq war? Only a programmed automaton could see removing a terror-sponsoring, WMD-obssessed rogue regime in a post-9/11 (after 15 years of failed diplomacy) as "unnecessary."

You're the only one here parrotting propaganda. :cool:
 
Last edited:
History will show GWB in a positive light.
Anyone that considers him a faulure needs to look back no nurther than Truman...

Just because others have failed, doesn't mean those after them can't. Bush's legacy is not going to be a good one, the Iraq war will not be remembered fondly. Maybe not quite as bad as Vietnam in the nation's memory, but up there. Bush didn't do many good things and he messed up a lot. Katrina won't be forgotten (BTW, how the hell is that place still not fixed, only major incompetence could have brought that about). Bush isn't the worst by any means, but he's on the lower side for sure. That's the reality of the situation.
 
Just because others have failed, doesn't mean those after them can't. Bush's legacy is not going to be a good one, the Iraq war will not be remembered fondly.

Winning a war that liberals lied about at every turn will be remembered fondly once it's behind us and isn't being propagandized against by the news media relentlessly. Abraham Lincoln fought a war many thought was far more unjust and he was far more unpopular.
 
:liar

Peddle your partisan misinformation elsewhere. Those of us who actually bother to inform ourselves know full well that it was Democrats who drafted a joint resolution demanding the full and immediate retreat after the bombing in Beirut, and Republicans who resisted their nauseating cowardice.

Every Democratic presidential candidate and every Congressional Democrat from Tip O'Neil to Joe Biden scorned Reagan for every second that he did not bend over for Islamic terrorists. And when they finally twisted his arm into doing it, he still insisted on bombing their terrorist camps on our way out, which the liberal treason machine also naturally excoriated him for.

Try again. :roll:

Sources please.
 
Winning a war that liberals lied about at every turn will be remembered fondly once it's behind us and isn't being propagandized against by the news media relentlessly. Abraham Lincoln fought a war many thought was far more unjust and he was far more unpopular.

You can in no way make a valid comparison between the Civil War and the Iraq war. That's nothing but outright silliness. The scales and necessity of the two are radically different, the affects they had on the nation are radically different. George Bush is no Abraham Lincoln. But you've got nothing other than partisan rhetoric here anyway, so I doubt you'd accept and acknowledge the real difference. Liberals lied about? How about the other way around? What did Saddam have to do with 9/11? Nothing. There was no terrorist groups operating out of Iraq. There wasn't half the crap we claimed there to be. And without declaration of war, we went in against a sovereign nation and removed their leader, destroyed their government, set up an occupying police force, etc. No, anyone willing to look at this without the partisan glasses will see the mistake this war was. It's cost well too much in blood and money for freedom and liberty which isn't ours. And we'll see how long that "freedom and liberty" last when we leave. Y'all are still living in delusions of grandeur.

Objectively, Iraq was nearly as bad as Vietnam.
 
You can in no way make a valid comparison between the Civil War and the Iraq war. That's nothing but outright silliness. The scales and necessity of the two are radically different, the affects they had on the nation are radically different...

You've cited not one single example or reason why an incredibly unpopular president seen as fighting an outrageous war of aggression (Lincoln) cannot be compared to...an incredibly unpopular president seen (falsely) as fighting an outrageous war of aggression (Bush).

Try again.

Liberals lied about? How about the other way around? What did Saddam have to do with 9/11? Nothing.

Yes, liberals lied pathologically about everything involving the war. And Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, hence the reason no one accused him of causing it-another thing liberals continuously lie about.

There was no terrorist groups operating out of Iraq.

:bs

Wrong again. We found terrorists there, even notorious terrorist fugitives like Abu Abbas, when we invaded. The 9/11 Commission Report also extensively links him to terrorists, as well as does his open terror-sponsoring. Another perfect example of something liberals lie through their teeth about at every turn.

There wasn't half the crap we claimed there to be.

Congratulations. :applaud

You've made your first accurate statement since this exchange began. Unfortunately, after 15 years of failed diplomacy, in a post-9/11 world, any WMD were too much for Saddam to have.

And without declaration of war, we went in against a sovereign nation and removed their leader, destroyed their government, set up an occupying police force, etc.

:liar2

And we were greeted as liberators, contrary to pathological liberal lying. So please, stop spreading misinformation. Also, we were authorized by UN Resolution 1441 to act.

Try again.

No, anyone willing to look at this without the partisan glasses will see the mistake this war was.

Nearly everyone looks at it with partisan glasses, involuntarily and unknowingly, because they have been so systematically misled at every turn by the news media. You are so utterly misinformed that objectivity looks like bias to you.

It's cost well too much in blood and money for freedom and liberty which isn't ours.

More misinformation. :liar

We lost fewer troops in the first four years of “peace” under Bill Clinton than in five years of heavy fighting in Iraq.

And there were people just like you who peddled this same shortsighted isolationist drivel about uprooting Hitler. It is people like you who history will look down on, not those with the spine and the intelligence to act.

And we'll see how long that "freedom and liberty" last when we leave. Y'all are still living in delusions of grandeur.

Democrats have tried to force us to betray our allies and lose this war at every turn (as always). No reasonable person could expect a little thing like victory to deter them from finding a way to surrender it to Islamic terrorists at this point. It's simply what liberals do.
 
"House Democrats Draft Resolution on Beirut Pullout." New York Times. 2/1/1984.

WASHINGTON, Jan. 31 - House Democratic leaders agreed tonight on a Congressional resolution that would urge President Reagan to begin ''the prompt and orderly withdrawal'' of the Marine contingent ...

It was Reagan's decision. The resolution wasn't binding.

How could Ann Coulter miss an opportunity to bash liberals?

Media Matters - Days after claiming Reagan brought "historic pause" to Islamic terrorism against U.S., Coulter suggested Reagan's actions in Beirut helped bring about 9-11
 
Back
Top Bottom