2007-11-12 05:11:43 · 29 answers · asked by WJ 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
It will truly be up to the long term historians to determine that.
People in the moment see it nor as history but current events.
Lincoln was really in bad shape with everybody and most of the north ready to sue for peace. they were tried of the war.
Then came Appomattox and now he's a hero.
IF it works out in Iraq lets wait 50 years and see.
2007-11-12 05:23:34 · answer #1 · answered by CFB 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I wish what you say could be true but I think not. Right now its just a waiting game until Bush is out of office. There is no doubt the U.S. is going to get out of Iraq. When that happens all hell will break loose in that country. Bush will not ever be looked at as a great president but one that started a decline for the nation as a whole.
2007-11-12 05:29:12 · answer #2 · answered by Robert S 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The 'libs' won't have to lie.
Look, even some conservatives are exceedingly disappointed in this administration.
Even an optimist would know that it will take years for things to get stable in Iraq, long after Bush is gone. And so no, he would not get credit for that.
It's also unlikely that a president that puts his country in debt to the tune of over 9 TRILLION dollars would be seen as being even average.
2007-11-12 05:25:26 · answer #3 · answered by yumlick23 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
islamic muslims... is that form of like Police law enforcement officers from the Simpsons? First, something is available, yet i think of your question implies a sort of fallacy of historic previous that's being perpetuated by utilising the subject in question (Prez Bush). there's no genuine end-activity for historic previous the place consensus is reached and the subject (be it a president or a civilization) will become "commonplace". President Bush is going down this street whilst he argues that historians have not made up their minds approximately Lincoln yet (implying that they ever will). the full element of historic previous is to heavily determine the previous, from the tips available to the modern-day in an attempt to the two undertaking or strengthen widespread awareness. Now on your incontrovertible fact that we've been hated by utilising (i'm carried out teasing on the subject of the designation you gave them) anti-American Islamists... they have been around for some years, fueled by utilising Sayyid Qutb, Abdullah Azzam, and Osama Bin encumbered between many others. The question is, is the applying of annoying capacity (armed forces rigidity) inflicting greater income or injury to this flow? i think of that's an particularly perplexing and sophisticated calculation to make. undergo in techniques, "terror" isn't a state on a map, it rather is a valid approach of assymetric war. As important as armed forces victories are, propaganda victories are only as lots so. we are the preeminent capacity, so we constantly have a captive objective audience. Our reaction honestly has an result on radicalization. additionally, we've made an huge investment in a single area, this has dwindled our geopolitical flexibility someplace else. this additionally should be slightly of of our calculation whilst thinking legacy. My element is that it rather isn't a black and white undertaking, it rather is complicated and tremendously dynamic.
2016-09-29 02:22:03 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Everyday Iraq moves towards Democracy. Today on The World News (The 700 Club), I heard that violence is at its lowest levels in Baghdad, people are moving back to their homes, and that Caldien Christian Churches are reopening for businesses. I also heard that more and more businesses are opening throughout Baghdad so that goods and services can be sold.
The news stories I head today are not going to be reported on the Liberal "LYING" Media and I go believe George W. Bush is one of the Greatest President In American History.
2007-11-12 05:23:43 · answer #5 · answered by Mr. Knowledgeable VI 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Only time will tell how history will view Bush II. But the assertion of anything resembling stability, being established anywhere in the middle east, has thousands of years of history arguing against it.
2007-11-12 05:22:25 · answer #6 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Too hard to say that now. Liberal media has created such a fog, the people cannot see what is clearly right in front of their eyes at this point. In time, his successes will be pointed out.
Look at Reagan as an example.
2007-11-12 05:25:37 · answer #7 · answered by Robert S 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
They do not have anything close to a stable government. What trends are you talking about. The trend that we sent thousands more troops over there, and violence has gone down. That does not mean they are stable, it just means are troops are scaring the populous into submission. Violence in the streets has not even returned to the level they were at under Sadam.
2007-11-12 05:16:50 · answer #8 · answered by benni 4 · 5⤊ 3⤋
No, he has not done enough to even be considered one of our greatest Presidents.
2007-11-12 05:22:03 · answer #9 · answered by Lisa M 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Bush is and will always known as a cowardly, draft dodging LOOSER who dispite having a silver spoon filled with coke up his nose and having Daddy bail him out has FAILED at every endevor he has ever taken on!
Greatest President - yeah right!
Right up there with Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Lincoln is DUBBYA?
What a insult to America to even include that moron in the same sentence as these great men!
2007-11-12 05:19:41 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 4⤋