Will he look better than he otherwise would have by comparison, or will paving the way for junior eclipse his performance altogether?
2007-07-01 13:58:47 · 7 answers · asked by yurbud 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
I think history will judge Bush 41 better than Bush 43 -- after all he did warn his son not to invade Iraq based on what he learned from Desert Storm. What hurt Bush 41 the most was his "read my lips" promise that he eventually broke.
2007-07-01 14:02:09 · answer #1 · answered by Dinah Steeler 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Historians have already ranked Bush I among all Presidents ... slightly above average, about the same as Clinton. Although I disagree with many of the things that Bush II has done, if in 20 years or so Iraq and Afghanistan do manage to form stable democracies, Bush II will be ranked above average. If either country fails to succeed, he will be below average (but, not too far because the economy is rather strong).
2007-07-01 23:37:51 · answer #2 · answered by jdkilp 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They'll call him a bootlegger, a philanderer and a communist sympathizer. No no, wait, that's the Kennedy's. P.S. I heard John-John was found floating on top of the water, while his wife was still strapped in the plane, just like Mary-Joe!
2007-07-01 23:19:27 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Two "one worlders" as two peas in a pod here! Vote for representative Ron Paul & support OUR Libertarian party to take back YOUR country/freedoms from the republocratic politicians(magicians!).
2007-07-01 21:04:50 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hey his performance was 0- to start with and yes that is zero minus. now back to junior, his performance is something less than daddies in fact he just plain sucks at everything.
2007-07-01 21:03:48 · answer #5 · answered by roy40371 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Another stupid Bush question.
2007-07-02 12:50:55 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I hope accordingly and fair......
2007-07-01 23:48:49 · answer #7 · answered by Light Fly 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋