Yes, George W. Bush Was a Terrible President, and No, He Wasn’t Smart
By Jonathan Chait
More than three years still remained in George W. Bush’s presidency when it had already collapsed by the end of 2005. The Bush revisionism industry has thus enjoyed an unusually long period of time in which to plan out its action and predict their man’s comeback as a misunderstood, unduly maligned and — dare they say it? — successful president. The opening of the Bush museum today has opened up a flood of pent-up Bush revisionism.
It is worth noting that Bush did some good things during his presidency. Some of these received due credit at the time (his education reform, his support for treating disease in Africa). Others received vastly disproportionate credit at the time owing to what one might call the soft bigotry of low expectations (his post-9/11 speeches, which amounted to telling a unified, leadership-craving country that Al Qaeda is bad.)
It is also true that Bush’s party unfortunately decided, after his presidency, that he failed primarily by being too moderate, too compassionate, and too bipartisan, and moved even further right since, making Bush look retrospectively sane. At the time, some of us simply took for granted Bush’s choices to avoid anti-Muslim bigotry and not propose enormous cuts to government programs for the sickest and most vulnerable Americans. By the standards of the present-day GOP, these decisions make Bush look fair-minded and even statesmanlike.
But the Bush revisionist project has far more ambitious aims than to merely salvage a few specks of decency from the ruins. It aims for a wholesale restoration, both characterologically and substantively.
more (good read)
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/04/bush-terrible-president-also-not-a-smart-man.html?test=true
= new reply since forum marked as read
We never completely finish them off, so they always wander off and re-group.
We HAD the chance to pursue Iran-Contra, but we let them off, and that brought us GHWB...NO GHWB, no GW...and it would have ended the Reagan worship.
GHWB WAS Iran Contra, and the dems who WERE A MAJORITY then, weaseled..GHWB was rewarded with the presidency instead of a jail cell, and the rest is history
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 05:08 AM
Original message
Now we know the true consequences of "going easy" on Iran Contra
Edited on Wed Jul-20-05 05:10 AM by SoCalDem
Had the Dems (who DID control both houses of congress) pressed harder, and not contented themselves with the idea that GHWB (the wimp) would be easygoing, and inconsequential...well things would be very different now.,
Had Reagan/Bush gotten their just desserts for Iran Contra, and all the dirt been exposed, they would have left office, fully disgraced..GHWB probably would not have even gotten elected..Carter would be held in higher esteem...and There's no way in HELL that *² would have gotten appointed to the white house
The appointments to the SCOTUS that were made by GHWB would have been made by a democrat..Kennedy..Souter..Thomas would not be on the bench, and we would not be facing a right wing court for the foreseeable future.
The democratic party has always hated "piling on", and has been ready to "forgive and forget".
Look at all the key players in this administration.. Almost all of them have their roots in the Iran Contra Days, Grenada, Panama, and many other republican schemes.
We do ourselves and the country a great disservice when we let the "bad guys" off with a slap on the wrist.
republicans have no shame.. they wear their crimes like badges of honor..and like the energizer bunnies, they just keep on coming back..
This is why we cannot let Rove off the hook, and strong language and actions are necessary..
The only thing that republicans DO understand is PUBLIC HUMILIATION, and jail terms.
If you DO wrong, you need to be punished..not just turned out of office to go lick your wounds until next time
