Do you agree with Washington Post the Bush Admin. will be a winner?

Question

The Washington Post says that lack of post 9-11 terrorist attack, a strong economy and the war in Iraq looking like it is on course to a successful outcome (Their words, not mine but I am optimistic their assertion is correct) means the Bush presidency will go down in history as successful.

In his day, Lincoln's presidency was considered by many to be a terrible national mistake yet now we have a huge monument to his memory in Washington. WIll it bother today's far-left to think a similar monument will ever be made to President Bush in 100 years for his actions during his presidency?

PLEASE....Only answers from thinkers and not koolaid drinkers on the left OR right. Also no answers saying Bush is dumb, etc. unless you are a graduate from Harvard or Yale. If you are so much smarter than him, why aren't you the president?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/13/AR2007071301709_pf.html

RobertK: Name calling such as crazy mofo and neo-con takes you out of the ranks of thinker and puts you in the ranks of koolaid drinker. Try to come up will intelligent arguments. Your only argument is to stifle debate. You are a scary person.

Slapnut: Good points but don't forget the original WTC bombing in the parking deck.

Blueridgeliving: Good points. I read everything you said but it seems your point is to kill the messenger. My question is about Bush in history and not Kristol.

rogerramjet: Why don't you avoid Yahoo Answers until you get into the 7th grade. It appears too many years of video games has taken a toll on your intellectual abilities to debate issues in the arena of ideas.

Sami V: You may have a point. Time will tell.

Leah: Yes, it surprised me too

Canctu: I have to disagree with you about worse president. I'd have to give that to Carter. I have personal experience with his misery index and 12% mortgage rates

Airlines: I wouldn't want to be president either. Whether it Bush, Clinton or Hillary we should pray for them. You sound like a reasonable thinker.

Jeff P: 99%? Don't be ridiculous. The past recent elections have been won by razor thin margins. Kristo may speak for 30 to 40% without question, 60 to 70% maybe. Your argument lacked thought other than to "kill the messenger." You do not appear to be one of the reasonable thinkers you mentioned.

rogerramjet: thank you for proving my point.

blueridgeliving: I have looked at the PNAC statement of principles at http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm.
Would you rather we let the direction of the world be set by radical islamofacists, red China or the UN? PNAC is a conservative think-tank. The liberals have their own think-tanks. Together we can try to hammer out a direction that protects the goals of our country. I do not want to shut down think-tanks on either side but you seem to want to censor any opinion that differs from your own. Perhaps you would be happier in red China. BTW, using wikipedia as a source is like Dan Rather using his forged document as a news source. At least you answered the question (finally). We don't agree but that's okay isn't it?

Answer 1

I think that an assertion like that coming from the notoriously liberal Washington Post is startling. I am glad that they admit that the economy is strong, and I am astonished that they would admit that the Bush Administration is given credit for the lack of terror attacks since 9/11.

Wow - I am impressed with The Post. And I do agree, we can't know now in the current context how history will view President Bush.

Answer 2

Absolutely, This Nation will be far safer than it was, say, five even ten years ago.
Most of all we will have Liberated a country that has been under the hands of dictators for many a century, and it would have been a horrible mistake to have let Saddam continue the genocide, and literal torment that he put the poor folks of Iraq through.
If we would have let Saddam continue what he was doing, and not took him to the noose, and think that right there would have played on the conscience of many souls, Since people know we have the power and resources necessary to accomplish the Greatest goal for the least fortunate of Iraq and elsewhere.
President Bush has been a unique President, in that, He has had a unique and extraordinary amount of courage to stand up the left-wing talking point heads and get the job done, despite the efforts of those on the Left to demean and demoralize our Great President for who he is.

This will be taught in history across this great land for years upon years to come, and it will be known as - The Great Liberation, lead by George Walker Bush!

Thank you, President Bush! The Best and the Bravest!

:)

Answer 3

Every President who has been in office has been critized one way or the other. In Fairness to them all, all have contribute something of worth. What they know and what we don't, is the key factor in making these decisions whether we like them or not. The decision they make is based on what we don't know. Bush as been blamed for 9/11. Right, like he told them to do what they did. Wake up people. The question everyone should be asking since they seem to know how to run the government is, Would I make a better President and would I get the job done right. Hardly think so my friend if you answered yes. The President has the whole world resting on his shoulders. Think that is easy when you can't handle your own problems? But then, we've had Presidents that really goofed badly in making some decisions but I dont believe they saw that it would go that way. We may never agree with many of the issues settled by the President(s) but he should never be blamed for a war that he did not want or commit.
What would the people do if we had no President or leader to guide the issues for us? And if people would read the track records of those who want to be President really well, they'd think of who not to vote for. A conservative, a liberal, who is the better? Each has their own flaws. But one should weigh the full background of each persons perspective and solutions. Then and only then you can make the right decisions in whom to vote for. For me personally, I vote conservative any day. I would much rather have more of the good and decent than anything less. God Bless those who would dare want to be President because its no dream of mines to be one. Thank you for a very good question. Have a great day. I think that Bush is doing a great job to the best of his ability. I'd vote for him again!

Answer 4

The "Washington Post" does not "say it."

Bill Kristol says it.

HUGE difference. Why on EARTH would anyone take seriously one syllable out of the mouth of such a blatant sycophant ?

William "Bill" Kristol, born into a Jewish family in New York City, December 23, 1952, is an American conservative pundit. He is the son of Irving Kristol, who is considered to be one of the founders of the neoconservative movement”

Kristol first made his mark as leader of the Project for the Republican Future, a conservative think tank, and rose to fame as a conservative opinionmaker during the battle over the Clinton health care plan. In his first of what would become legendary strategy memos circulated among Republican policymakers, Kristol said the party should "kill", not amend or compromise on, the Clinton health care plan. The success of the Clinton proposal, he warned, would “re-legitimize middle-class dependence for ‘security’ on government spending and regulation,” and “revive ... the Democrats, as the generous protector of middle-class interests.” Kristol's memo immediately became important in uniting Republicans behind total opposition to Clinton's reform plan. A later memo advocated the phrase There is no health care crisis, which Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole used in his response to Clinton's 1994 State of the Union address.

[edit] Weekly Standard
After the Republican sweep of both houses of Congress in 1994 Kristol established, along with neoconservative John Podhoretz and with financing from Rupert Murdoch, the conservative periodical The Weekly Standard. In 1997, he founded, with Robert Kagan, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). He is also a member of the conservative think tank the American Enterprise Institute from which the Bush administration has borrowed over two dozen members to fill various government offices and panels. Kristol is currently chairman of PNAC and editor of The Weekly Standard.

[edit] George W. Bush
Along with other neoconservatives, such as Kenneth L. Adelman, Kristol was a strong advocate of the Iraq war. In 2003, just as the Iraq War was starting, Kristol appeared on the National Public Radio show "Fresh Air" and made the following statement: "There's been a certain amount of pop sociology in America ... that the Shia can't get along with the Sunni and the Shia in Iraq just want to establish some kind of Islamic fundamentalist regime. There's almost no evidence of that at all. Iraq's always been very secular." [1] Some have harshly criticized Kristol for these comments; for example Al Franken, Alex Koppelman, and Harold Meyerson [2].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Kristol
*********************************

LET ME REPEAT THAT:
"Kristol is currently chairman of PNAC ."
******************************

EDIT: Do you know what PNAC is? I'm not "killing the messenger" pal, I'm identifying the Traitor. With a resume like Kristol, NOTHING he says is valid, believable, or relevant.

You're asking about History and bush? Why? You already know the answer.

bush will go down as THE WORST PRESIDENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY. No competition, no question, no excuses.

Answer 5

Well if you can drink koolaid why can't we!

NO to all of the above!

Anyone can have a successful economy going 3 1'2 TRILLION dollars in the red. Do you have any idea how much that is!

And by the way, it really is not that successful. Peaked at housing starts lately?

There are some who are really out there! You can't make something out of nothing!

And don't worry, Bush will never get a monument.

1/20/09: End of an Error

His only win will be for the title of Worst President in US History!

Answer 6

When you think about it, the only issue that is really dragging him down, politically, is the war in Iraq. What president in U.S. history has been defined by war? There were only two that had their presidencies defined by war, Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt. Yet, only 1 president, Rutherford B. Hayes, did not oversee any military conflict.

When you think back on how Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Lyndon Johnson are remembered, nobody remembers that they were engaged in wars that were unsuccessful, in terms of winning the wars. Korea was ended with a ceasefire, and Vietnam with a full troop withdrawal. Yet, they are remembered in a positive light.

I am confident that President Bush's successes in the war on terror, coupled with his outstanding performance on domestic issues (especially in his first term), will ensure his place as a successful president.

Answer 7

In the Post's defence, it's written by William Kristol, and he's a crazy mofo. To the Post's detriment, they gave him space in their paper to print this fantasy. And they continue to print opinion pieces pushing the neo-con ideology, which has been discredited again and again. Used to be such a good paper too.

The article essentially states that:
If only people were not so stupid and so cowardly, they could see the genius that GWB will be considered to be by historians 1000 years from now.
Kristol drank the kool-aid long ago. Read "The War over Iraq", it's the neo-con case against Saddam Hussein, written before the invasion. It's a good laugh and at a whopping 150 pages, won't take you long to breeze through it.

Answer 8

While I normally take my proton power pill to whomp liberals, the "article" in the Washington Post is actually an opinion piece from William Kristol, a neanderthal con.

Most conservatives are too brain dead like you to know the difference.

Wah wah wah, you can't tell the difference between the Washington Post and Bill Kristol. Then accuse me of lacking intellectual abilites??? If I haven't reached the 7th grade, then you haven't passed the 1st grade.

Answer 9

Ummm, "their words" are an op-ed piece from a well-known conservative William Kristol, who basically is a complete Bush lackey. It does not all represent the views of 99% of all reasonable thinkers.

Answer 10

Just the simple fact that he held two terms in office is going to make it look good for historys sake. I think they will naturally try to make it all sound very nice and courteous for this president. He like all the rest will go down in history with all the facts and figures but boy won't there be talk about it long afterwards. Stories to tell the grand kids.