Are today's cons counting on future cons rewriting history so Bush is remembered as a good president?

Question

I keep hearing them say history will be kind to him. Only if it gets rewritten in the future!

Answer 1

I would imagine that the President and his people already are trying to put their own spin on history and have written their own version to put the President in a very good light. History, in truth, is written in the present and can be most accurately judged in the present and NOT in the past.

Years later, when this whole thing blows over, Bush feels, people will remember him as being a great man and great US President who was brave enough to fight bad people in this world and to bring freedom and democracy about around the world. They will overlook his and his administration's blunders (lies) and will look to the successes that he has brought to the world. This is the spin and if one has enough backing or money, a spin will be what is recorded as truth. This is what Bush is hoping for, so, for him, he must allow sufficient time to pass so his version of history will become the version remembered.

(1) No one will remember some tiny and insignificant voice, out there (some foreign head of state in exile), asking the President for help to protect him and his family and wanting to return back to his homeland to bring about democracy and freedoms without civil war or violence in his nation. (2) Nations will be judged by the dominant voice (Bush's eventually, so he feels) and not the lesser heard voice asking the President for help.

Is Qatar part of an axis of evil? Ever look at the Emir of Qatar's homepage? Just who is lying, the Emir or President Bush? Often times, we, the people, create our own reality!

Max


FIRST EDIT:
Historians sometimes errs as they only know what is currently published and/or accepted. May do not do independent research as that takes too much time and money. So, inaccuracies may be published in history texts and journals. Sad!
.

Answer 2

Why would anyone in their right mind be concerned about Bush's legacy with all that's going on? People who are upset about what history will say about Bush should use that same energy to work for the next president by helping to send the message along. I couldn't care less what history says about Bush. There's too many that know the truth.... He did the best he could do under strained circumstances. Sounds just like any other presidents bio.

Answer 3

Those who write history generally lean more liberal. The few that do lean conservative generally look, as do the liberal ones at presidents in a very neutral manner. So if they rate a president good you can pretty well bet he was good and if they rate him bad it is very likely he was bad. The degree of good or bad may be slanted ever so slightly by the slant of the writer either to the right or left but that slant is so slight it really doesn't matter. I read somewhere that even right leaning historians don't rate Dubya very high. They may not place him at the very bottom as their left leaning historian pals do at the very bottom. Bottom or second from the bottom really doesn't matter as he is still not seen very well by the experts.

Answer 4

The republican party will have to rid itself of the neocons if they want to remain a viable force in the governmental process. Even the blind supporters are beginning to see the light. You wouldn't know it from someof the answers here. i think all of those 22%ers are here answering questions!

It won't take neocons rewriting history to make the last 8 years look good, it will take magicians.

Answer 5

your question is embarrasingly stupid, and myopic.
I happen to be a republican, and I don't like bush, but part of the question hinges on what happens in the future resulting from things bush started.
for example, it could be surmised that Reagan was a great pres b/c he helped bring down the ussr.
so do you suppose to know the future?

Answer 6

They will be waiting a long time for that to happen. Historians are very careful about not inserting their own political beliefs into history, whatever they may be. That would indeed be rewriting history.

Answer 7

History is not written solely by the people who support or oppose a president during his term(s) in office. Lincoln, for instance, garnered as much division and opposition as any president, especially during the Civil War - yet he is remembered as arguably one of our best presidents. History is just that - history - and the past cannot be written in the present without the aid of hindsight.

Answer 8

no between 2000 and 2008 there will be a blank under u.s. presidents in history books

Answer 9

Oh, you mean like the Dems did for that failure Bill Clinton! I get it. No, they won't have to.

Because of things like this:

What Did The Democrats Say About Iraq's WMD JANUARY 30, 2004 |

Document Location: http://www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004.s...

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

If he believed what he was saying and did nothing, he was derelict in his duty of protecting the USA.

if he didn't believe what he was saying, he's a liar.

Either way, his actions/inaction's led to this crap we're in today.

But demnesia is very contagious apparently.

Answer 10

Yes.
Nothing will change the facts that Carter & Clinton were the Worst Presidents in History.

Nice Try. Sorry, no soggy cigar for you.
Please try again.