English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

20 answers

A stubborn leader, who surrounded himself with incompetent advisers who gave him bad intelligence, but stayed with them out of blind loyalty. Right up there with Nixon and Harding.

2006-10-14 05:06:08 · answer #1 · answered by Feathery 6 · 2 0

i understand that the left purely likes to indicate out his mess united statesbut easily i think of that historic previous will see it otherwise. First on the financial front he confronted a Dot com bust which effectively became a inventory industry crash, he dealt with the assaults of 9-11, and he had to deal with the worst typhoon disaster in American historic previous all of those weren't his fault however the financial device has been stable pondering the fairly some variety of issues that he confronted. this does not recommend that each and every undertaking is great yet there have been a good style of issues. The Iraq conflict is the present objective of Liberal Bashing and it rather is tough cases appropriate now yet fulfillment continues to be available and it rather is going to be what makes or brakes his presidency. keep in mind on an identical time as human beings communicate approximately Japan and Germany as fulfillment memories we are nonetheless there and up till the ninety's we had plenty greater troops in Germany than we ever had in Iraq. Iraq is likewise purely one piece of a much bigger conflict which will could be dealt with by ability of the subsequent president no rely what their cutting-edge place is.

2016-10-02 07:16:00 · answer #2 · answered by laseter 4 · 0 0

History will judge George W. Bush as the most incompetent person ever to occupy the White House (to date). -RKO-

2006-10-14 05:19:21 · answer #3 · answered by -RKO- 7 · 2 0

History judges from the beginning to the end.. It is a foul story and not an honourable one. What a way " to go down in history" .
Dizzy.

2006-10-14 06:04:04 · answer #4 · answered by Dizzy 2 · 0 0

He will go down in history as a president who accomplished very little while trying to establish a legacy for himself. I think he will rank right up there with Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover. Not exactly the best of company.

2006-10-14 04:58:55 · answer #5 · answered by mopjky 5 · 1 0

It may not matter.

The people that hold up Carter and Clinton as great Presidents are making it more difficult to deal with the problems they created, one of which is Iran.

If the Liberals who think GWB will be judged harshly by history continue to make the problems they caused harder to deal with, there's not going to be any history written about it at all.

2006-10-14 05:08:17 · answer #6 · answered by open4one 7 · 0 2

Like Abe Lincoln

2006-10-14 06:42:38 · answer #7 · answered by rallman@sbcglobal.net 5 · 0 1

The American History books will lie, just like they usually do, hopefully books published in other countries will portray a closer picture of the truth.

2006-10-14 05:06:04 · answer #8 · answered by jeshzisd 4 · 0 1

Only history knows.

2006-10-14 05:26:32 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

more importantly, how will history judge the American people who elected him not once , but twice, and turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to the real problems.

2006-10-14 05:15:18 · answer #10 · answered by Mike Honcho 5 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers