A great man of principle. He was hated and viciously excoriated by the left
which means his principles were almost always right.
George Bush was a great president and leader after 911 - he brought ALL Americas
together and that is something our current White House resident has never done.
Bush also oversaw a pretty darn good economy for 6 of 8 years with unemployment
in 4% range nationally ...again something our current president has never done.
I didn't like the Iraq war decision - that was a huge mistake and I
didn't agree with his attitude toward out sourcing of jobs. Bush took alot
of the heat for the financial melt down of 2007-2008 but in fact the
democrat's were equally to blame if not more to blame with Frank and Dodd
over seeing Fanny and Fredie and pushing for all the insane home loans that
caused the collapse. Bush should have been more vigilant and he wasn't and
so he shares the blame. Overall Bush was a good decent man who people trusted
... again totally different from our current White House resident.
What is moral about invading a country under false pretenses and in the process,
sacrificing American lives and treasure?What is moral about tax cuts
which disproportionately enrich those at the top, and decrease long-term
revenue?Republicans should not be in leadership positions until they
can admit to and learn from past mistakes.Their continual defense of the
Iraq War is stark evidence they are a danger to the well-being of the U.S.
Bush oversaw a pretty good economy for 6 of the eight years..yea while a near
fatal bubble was building. Bubbles look pretty good on paper..not so good in
reality. Then he leaves whom ever the next President was going to be a pile of
ashes to rummage through inorder to try and find some building materials to
start again. Bush was a man who people trusted..really? You
insinuate with "people" that the trust was universal. In fact his
ratings were very low when he left office and almost despised internationally.
And how in the world does someone qualify as a "great" President when
they oversee a direct attack on Americans in America. Start two wars that
extend longer than any previous wars in our history and then oversee an economy
that creates a massive bubble and then is left in near total ruin as you walk
out the door.
@ Truthseeker. Your heavily biased views on "morality" is flawed to the
extreme.Let me see if I can help you.#1: Why is it moral to kill
enemies with drone attacks including all the collateral damage but its somehow
immoral in any other way? The only difference is we don't see it on TV like
before.#2: Everyone who pays taxes got a tax decrease, not just those at
the top, who by the way pay nearly all federal taxes while 47% of Americans pay
no federal income taxes at all. What is "moral" about that?#3:
Mistakes? How about Benghazi, Obamacare, White House intelligent leaks, more
people on food stamps than at any other time in history, $7 trillion increase in
the national debt in less than 5 years! All moral accomplishments or
This brings back memories: not of Bush as man of principle, but man of
inflexible neoconservative ideology who plunged us into the Iraq war without
anything close to adequate concern for the likely consequences. He struck me
then -- and now -- as arrogant and ignorant. It goes without saying that we are
still paying the price for Iraq.Unfortunately, one part of the price
of Bush and Iraq was the election of Obama -- another arrogant, ignorant and
inflexible president who seems bent on an economic course that will overshadow
even Iraq as a disaster for the country.Maybe someday we will get a
president who doesn't share the qualities of the last two?
Who has the highest principles? A President who told us about WMD's in
Iraq, and watched a bubble rise in the economy or a President who lies about
shovel ready jobs, pet green energy projects, fast and furious, and Benghazi?
Has anyone considered that possibly the Sarin nerve gas that Syria has
apparently used might have come from Iraq before the invasion? Just a
thought.I think President Bushs' biggest mistake in thinking is
believing that our form of democracy can be brought to Middle-East Islamic
countries. I don't think any political system will outweigh the influence
of the religion in those places. Ultimately Islam will prevail, and it does not
fit with a true democratic system. Is it moral to spend borrowed
money to the tune of 17 trillion dollars, and expect future generations to be
responsible for paying it? Bush spent too much borrowed money, but Obama has
gone crazy with it.
To say Bush lacked Clinton’s communication gifts is an understatement.
There were times he couldn’t seem to complete a full sentence without
tripping over his own tongue. So I was astonished when in his address to
Congress the week after 911 he gave as fine a speech as I’ve heard a
President give.After 911, Bush was not a galvanizing force so much
as a rallying point for Americans still traumatized by the attacks. Maybe it
made him cocky to have his approval ratings sky high. That’s when he made
the fateful decision to make Iraq a priority of overall U.S. Middle East policy
a year into the war on terror.Afghanistan suddenly went from front
and center to back seat. I was glad to see Saddam Hussein removed from power,
then chagrined at how quickly his downfall retribalized Iraq with conflicts
among Kurds, Sunnis, and Shia. It complicated the already difficult task of
creating a model government for the region. We still don’t know how
that’s going to turn out and it raises questions of how much foresight
Bush had in taking on such an effort.
Re: Craig Clark. To further your point about Iraq, when the Soviet Union
collapsed, the same kind of tribalization came out in Yugoslavia, which led to
the genocidal policies there. Maybe Bush senior was right to leave Saddam in
power, knowing that some countries are under better control with dictatorships,
in spite of it being against our prinicples to accept such. I think Iraq is
going to go back to where it would have been if we had never invaded in the
first place. The biggest danger might be if Iran gets control of Iraq. That
would mean a bigger oil revenue source with which to help promote more
terriorism worldwide. And I doubt the U.S. would be interested in going to war
to kick out Iran like it did with Iraqs invasion of Kuwait.
m.g. scott,"....I think Iraq is going to go back to where it
would have been if we had never invaded in the first place...."____________________________Bush senior may have been hoping that
Saddam had been taught a lesson in Kuwait that would restrain him in the future.
Sadly, that was not the case for one so incorrigible who thumbed his nose at the
UN encouraging the suspicion that he was stockpiling WMDs in a bluff that Bush
junior decided to call.Saddam did keep the lid on with Iraq's
warring factions but he did so using methods that have persisted in his bad boy
behavior causing ongoing problems for the region at a time when the U.S. was
turning its attention to dealing with al Queda. I'm sure that factored in
to why Bush initially got strong public support for going in. Saddam's
presumed cache of WMDs provided what seemed like the perfect premise on which
Bush felt he couldn't miss.
Craig ClarkAnd I too supported Bush going into Iraq on the premise
of WMD. However, what I did not support was after we took down Iraq and Saddam
Bush then saying we were going to stick around and try to rebuild Iraq in our
image. That was part of the program that Bush did not tell the American people
about when he made the case to invade. And those years there were the most
costly for both lives and money. And what have we accomplished? Like I said
before, I think that in the end, Iraq will be dominated by Islam in what ever
form it decides to take in the coming years. And an Islamic dicatator might be
what the people really want in the end. Sometimes I think we do not realize
just how powerful the influence of Islam is in the lives of Muslims. Much more
so I believe than other religions. I doubt you could get many Christians to
believe that Jesus wants you to commit suicide and kill people in his name.
I was not a big fan of Bush's polices or the two wars but I also think he
really did try to do the best he could and tried to do what he thought was
right, sadly I think he gave to much of his trust to certain people that are
less then principled
Colin Powell initially opposed going in to Iraq. "You break, you own
it," he was quoted as telling the White House. Eventually, he came around to
agreeing to it and even argued the U.S. position to the UN. But he understood
from the very beginning what a mess it could turn into if all didn't go
according to plan.
So will it say Cheney/Bush or Bush/Cheney on the front of the building?
And Colin Powell used a lot of photographic evidence and other stuff to assure
us and the world that these weapons were there. Maybe there were some there at
the time. However, by the time the coalition forces got there months later,
Saddam might have moved them to either Iran (as he did his fighter planes during
Gulf War One) or maybe Syria, which could account for possible chemical attacks
being made by Syria today. In any case, we did accomplish our "mission"
namely securing Iraq from the threat of WMD. That's when we should have
declared "mission accomplished" and gotten out. We may have broke it,
but I didn't want to own it.
The spin of the GOP trying to rewrite history is quite amusing.
His two terms defy summary...you got that right, my friend. The best way to sum
it up is it's good that it's behind us.
m.g. Scott it is time for a real history lesson. What Colin Powell presented at
the UN was untrue. All his conclusions were wrong and all the pictures provided
were totally misinterpreted to lead to a wrongful conclusion. The United States
has never before embarrassed itself in front of the UN Security Council as it
did 10 years. Our image across the world is still tarnished because of that. I
challenge anyone to prove me wrong.
@HS Fan look what they did with "RR" you would think that
guy was a saint but those of us old enough to remember now it was no bed of
roses during his two terms. Poor Bush senior really took the hit for
"RR" in the end.
"Dedication to principle" is not necessarily a good thing. It can mean
dedication to all the wrong things. Some of history's worst actors --
Lenin, Stalin and Hitler always come to mind -- were devoted to principles. Just
disastrously wrong and harmful ones. Bush's idea that he would bring
democracy to the Middle East by invading Iraq was one principle we could have
He failed on 9/11 and then failed again by doubling the national debt during
good times and starting 2 unnecessary wars for oil.He also said
nothing as the banks set up the worst recession in our history.
I think Bush was sincere... but he did an awful job of being president leaving a
trainwreck in his wake.
@m.g. scott 10:01 a.m. April 26, 2013Has anyone considered that
possibly the Sarin nerve gas that Syria has apparently used might have come from
Iraq before the invasion? Just a thought.---------------------Not me. Why? Because sarin gas has a shelf life measured in weeks, 1-2
months at most. There is no way any Iraqi sarin gas, if there was any in the
first place in 2003 which I doubt, would have remained stable, and not degraded
and expired, long before now.
Re Ronnie from SandyI find it interesting no one has answered your
challenge. Their silence is telling. I for one agree with your comment.
Re: Iron Rod re: Ronnie from SandyRest assured the usual suspects
are busy searching for an answer to your challenge...The Bush's
have enough money to hire someone...anyone...to re-write the history of BUSH
2.There must be someone out there who has scrubbed 2001-2008 in
order to validate Gerson's premise.
RE There you go againAs one who has lived in Utah most of his life I
find it a total embarassement that we returned him back to office with the
highest approval rating in the nation.What factors contributed to
him having the highest approval rating in the nation here in Utah?
The only way people will "see Bush dedicated to principle" is to ignore
the facts of his presidency and to ignore the harm he brought to this country
through eight disastrous years in office. He didn't keep us safe -- his
policies created huge numbers of terrorists to answer his actions. His response
to the warning about 9/11 was "okay -- you've covered your
"backside" and 9/11 happened. His policies put the economy down the
toilet -- he did everything on credit, and we're still trying to clean up
the mess GWBush created. He invaded and occupied a country without true cause,
and thousands of US military personnel and civilians were killed and maimed as a
result (and don't forget the thousands of Iraqi citizens he killed and
maimed while he took their country back to the dark ages). I know
revisionists are trying to re-write GWBush and his legacy. Hopefuly enough
people who see him clearly will be around to stop their efforts, and leave the
truth about GWBush in plain view now and later. He was and is the worst
president the US has ever had -- even worse than Jimmy Carter, and that is
saying a lot.
Manipulation of the Masses? Wow in five days the Deseret News has
carried five pro Bush articles. That is after five years of him painting his
toes or silence, Are we wittinessing an orchestrated campaign by
some lobbying or PR firm to rehibilate the Bush name.Is it a
coincidence or is it political preparations for Jeb Bush entering the
Presidential race.To me it sounds familiar to the campaign on why we
should attack Iraq ten years ago.