President Bush Leaving Office More Unpoular Than Nixon

[Louis VI the Fat]

Yes, Hooahguy, while maybe not being sarcastic, I was not entirely convinced myself that what i wrote was true. You picked up on that correctly.

However, I am not entirely convinced that I was wrong either. There is a possibility that in thirty years history will judge Bush in the way I outlined. There is a possibility that they are right about it too.

It is always good to challenge yourself. To take the other perspective. I still struggle with the neo-con project that dominated Bush I. What if they were right?
They named North Korea, Iraq and Iran as an axis of evil. They strove for regime change. There is part of me that thinks that maybe they were not wrong.
Islamofascism has been brewing for decades. Bush and the neo-cons made themselves their enemy. They recognised the danger, they named it, they met it physically and ideologically. Were they wrong?

After all these years, I am still struggling with it. I am still struggling with Iraq too. I can honestly not say with full confidence that they were wrong.

[LittleGrizzly]

After all these years, I am still struggling with it. I am still struggling with Iraq too. I can honestly not say with full confidence that they were wrong.

I know what you mean..... the talk of country building and replacing tyranny with democracys are very lofty goals that it is hard to disagree with, infact i would say they are fantastic goals for any foriegn policy, but what it comes down to for me with iraq is, wrong place, wrong time and wrong reasons. Apart from that i was 100% behind the thing...

[Lemur]

Ouch, just ouch.

With Russian tanks only 30 miles from Tbilisi on August 12, Mr Sarkozy told Mr Putin that the world would not accept the overthrow of Georgia’s Government. According to Mr Levitte, the Russian seemed unconcerned by international reaction. “I am going to hang Saakashvili by the *****,” Mr Putin declared.

Mr Sarkozy thought he had misheard. “Hang him?” — he asked. “Why not?” Mr Putin replied. “The Americans hanged Saddam Hussein.”

Mr Sarkozy, using the familiar tu, tried to reason with him: “Yes but do you want to end up like [President] Bush?” Mr Putin was briefly lost for words, then said: “Ah — you have scored a point there.”

[rasoforos]

Nixon was just a crook.

But Dubya has broken every record for purposefull immorality. (and all in the name of God)

Nixon was corrupt and had a greek vice-president and that is a recipe for disaster :P

But Dubya, being closely associated with the likes of Henry Kissinger who is considered a criminal and personna non grata in most of the planet didnt help either.


Simply put, the problem is that noone really believed Nixon. But people believed Dubya and he used Patriotism and God to make em believe. So it stands to reason that he is disliked more than Nixon to me.

[Banquo's Ghost]

But Dubya has broken every record for purposefull immorality. (and all in the name of God)

Lord knows I hold no candle for the Bush administration, but I don't think President Bush can be accused of purposeful immorality.

I think the president is a decent man whose belief system brooked no internal reflection or personal challenge. He was maintained in this rigid thought by more manipulative people around him. It should be remembered that on the day after 9-11, pretty much his entire constituency was baying for blood and revenge. It takes a strong man to resist that siren call yet still take effective action.

From that moment, he gave into every dark thought a conservative soul is prone too - control, pre-emption, demonisation. He was facilitated in this by a compliant and equally unthinking Congress.

Nonetheless, one has to remember always that he firmly believed that he was protecting the American people - which is his first duty as president.

He can be accused of rigid certainty and lack of empathy - a huge failing in any leader - but personal, purposeful, immorality is, I think, an imputation too far.

Nixon however, was indeed a crook and knew it.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Banquo:

Nice try (and I agree with a number of your points) You are wasting your time.

Nixon is history, and therefore not so bad (but he was a crook, and knew it/considered himself above the law).

Bush is current, and therefore the acme of evil (i.e. only that which I personally have experience with can be viewed as the "best" or "worst," it is impossible that the best or worst preceded me).

His detractors will brook no "gray area" assessments and cannot find ANY other explanation for his foreign policy decisions aside from abject stupidity, greed and/or religious fanaticism.

Give Bush 35 years and some calmer reflection will be allowed. For now, he must serve as the Emperor to Sen. Obama's Luke.

[Martok]

Give Bush 35 years and some calmer reflection will be allowed. For now, he must serve as the Emperor to Sen. Obama's Luke.

Sigged.

[CountArach]

His detractors will brook no "gray area" assessments and cannot find ANY other explanation for his foreign policy decisions aside from abject stupidity, greed and/or religious fanaticism.

You mean there are other reasons?

[Jolt]

What I find most funny about this entire situation is that he is on his second term. It was evident in his first term how competent he was, and yet he was elected again. How could such a dumb President be elected twice? Who knows if he runs for President in a decade, people might elect him again.

[Devastatin Dave]

he gave into every dark thought a conservative soul is prone too - control, pre-emption, demonisation.

Really, so lefties like Mao, Stalin, Che, Ho Chi Min, Castro, Kim Jung Il are really conservatives?

[KarlXII]

Really, so lefties like Mao, Stalin, Che, Ho Chi Min, Castro, Kim Jung Il are really conservatives?

You mean your lovers?

[Banquo's Ghost]

Really, so lefties like Mao, Stalin, Che, Ho Chi Min, Castro, Kim Jung Il are really conservatives?

Well, Dave, yes indeed. But then I use the word "conservative" not as a battle flag, but in its intended meaning - one who conserves the status quo, is interested in traditional values and is cautious of change or innovation.

Of your list, only Che would not have fitted the description once they had imposed their revolutions (and no doubt, had he lived, he would have ended up a conservative too). The dark soul of conservatives I was describing is the urge to rely on law to control, not to trust people to behave, to impose the (often nostalgic and fantastical) tried and trusted, and restrict freedoms. Just as the dark soul of the liberal is too much trust, carelessness of people's fears, and a wanton disregard for the law and precedent if the law is perceived not to fit their current needs.

Each of the men noted by you created deeply conservative regimes, terrified of thought and change and characterised by rigid controls, false patriotism and the demonisation of an "Other".

I compare none of them to President Bush, save in noting the continuum. I also note that each of them started their political careers as revolutionary liberals - showing in the most extreme form, that we are all liberals when young, and all conservative when old.

To provide you with further LOLs, I consider myself a conservative, and recognise the dark soul of which I speak in my own political reactions. Not only am I quite a traditionalist, I am keen on fiscal responsibility. I am a strong advocate of the rule of law - which is why I devote myself to the cause of human rights and the respect for a system of international law.

I also whip hippies from my land and have been known to eat a baby or two with my kedgeree.