When talking about the problems of the Middle East and the prospect of a "terrorist" dictator", people often comment, "If you had foreseen the rise of Hitler, would you have tried to stop him?"
Well, in 50-100 years when most of us who were around are already dead, will Americans be asking the same thing about Bush? About us?
2007-11-01 21:18:02 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I think that depends on whether people 50 years from now are still being killed by Islamic fundamentalists. If not, Bush will be remembered as the first world leader to stand against the insanity of terrorism. And it's OBL that should be compared to Hitler. Don't forget, despite what the loons say, it wasn't Bush who attacked America on 9/11, it was the crazy bastards who thought Allah would provide them with virgins in heaven if they died while killing innocents.
2007-11-01 21:32:14 · answer #1 · answered by Jay 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
It hasn't taken 50 years, and I doubt his standing will improve after his successors take over the Whitehouse and find out what's been going on. Also when papers are released under freedom of information, some pretty sticky stuff will be there. No history is already in the process of judging him. The only difference 50 will make is that people will be suffering more from his opposition to climate change measures. If that problem really hits, his link up with big oil really will make him look more damaging than Hitler.
2007-11-01 21:59:46 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
maybe they will but then again if neoconservative fascism ends up trumping democracy then the living generation 50-100 years from now will be fully indoctrinated and will view bush and other modern day nazis in the same light as the founding fathers. at this point i would give the edge to fascist takeover since they have most of the corporate giants and media companies as allies.
2007-11-01 22:19:42 · answer #3 · answered by 22steve5150 3 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Hitler *still* has fans.
My grandmother went to her grave, swearing that Nixon was wonderful and that he had been hounded out of office for a trivial offense.
Nobody need prescience in 2004; everything wrong with Bush was already clearly visible when he ran for re-election. The red states are generally rural states, where people have to take care of themselves, because they're spaced too far apart for government to be able to do it. The blue states are generally urban states, where government has to take care of people, because they're spaced too closely together to allow them free rein in caring for themselves.
It wasn't really Bush vs. Gore, or Bush vs. Kerry. It was Blue State versus Red State. That's why it'll be no cakewalk for the democrats to win the presidency in 2008 - and with Hillary at the top of the ticket, the democrats are likely to lose seats in the house and the senate.
2007-11-01 21:31:05 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋
I highly doubt it.
I think that will be said of Clinton who allowed the actions of terrorists to go unanswered throughout his terms.
This could have all been nipped in the bud by welding a heavy hand much earlier.
It would have been nice to have seen him at least make some attempt to do that. He chose to protect and invest in his best interest and his popularity rather than see to it that terrorism meet with ramifications.
2007-11-01 21:51:27 · answer #5 · answered by wider scope 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
No. In 50 years when the mid east is a free and democratic part of the world much like Europe after WW2, Bush will be respected the same as Roosevelt is today. Bush did the right thing after 911...he took the fight to the enemy.
.
2007-11-01 21:34:51 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 7⤋
no because bush is not a dictator or terrorist despite the liberal pap you get from pelosi. what people will be asking about is why didnt we stop the clintons and they have clearly displayed impeachable behavior and yes is said CLINTONS as its not guilt by association its guilt by knowing and willing participation.
- The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates*
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- First president accused of rape.
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- First president to be held in contempt of court
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court
2007-11-01 23:19:44 · answer #7 · answered by koalatcomics 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
In 50 years the Iraqis and the Iranians will be like the Japanese and Germans today.
2007-11-01 21:38:50 · answer #8 · answered by sea link2 4 · 3⤊ 3⤋
I already have been saying that. I think in a 100 years, if there is anyone left, they will liken Bush to other poor leaders throughout history.
2007-11-01 22:11:34 · answer #9 · answered by Top Alpha Wolf 6 · 2⤊ 3⤋
With a 50 year perspective... we would have had Miss Lillian have an abortion to avoid those miserable 4 years of Jimmy Carters presidency and we would have also realized that if Bill Clinton pursued the islamo facist menance more aggresively...9-11 would never had occured.
2007-11-01 21:47:40 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 5⤋