Amazing << Hear this. Feel this, and tell me that this isn't music.
And dont sleep on these two, either.
Posted on 01/20/2009 9:26:58 AM PST by jbwbubba
In August 1951, with a little more than a year left to Harry S. Truman's presidency, historian Henry Steele Commager published an essay in Look magazine with this prediction: "By all normal standards, [Truman's] Administration has been one of almost . . . unparalleled success . . . the verdict of history will not be the same as the verdict of contemporary critics."
At the time, Truman's popularity hovered in the low 20s and most Americans considered his presidency a failure. Look's editors even published a note declaring "doubts" about "whether history will accord Harry S. Truman as generous a place as Professor Commager assigns him." History eventually sided with Commager.
Today, President George W. Bush leaves office with approval ratings only slightly higher than Truman's. And I will make this prediction: The verdict of history on the Bush presidency will not be the same as the verdict of contemporary critics.
While Mr. Bush made mistakes during his time in office, like Truman he racked up a record of unparalleled success that will be increasingly appreciated in the years to come.
Like Truman at the start of the Cold War, Mr. Bush set our nation's course at the start of a new and unprecedented war. And like Truman, he responded by laying out a clear doctrine to guide America through the conflict. Mr. Bush created the institutions necessary to prevail in this struggle. He created the Department of Homeland Security and a new director of national intelligence. He transformed the FBI and the Justice Department to fight terror. He established new military commands. And he transformed NATO from a defensive alliance into an expeditionary alliance that is now leading the fight in Afghanistan.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
History will remember President Bush well.
And btw, it will comment on just how screwed up the mainstream media was during the past eight years.
That will be one of the ‘big things’ history discusses and writes papers about for the next couple of centuries.
That won’t be pretty, but it will be accurate, unlike say CBS or NBC news.
YAWN????
Depends on who writes the history.
Read Perle’s account of the Bush years and his role in them from Sunday morning. He makes it clear that Bush tolerated a level of insubordination that was inexcusable in any chief administrator much less the POTUS. There should have been blood in the halls of the State Dept., the CIA, and even the Pentagon if only half of what Perle had to say was true. Bush was plainly just too good of a man to do what the job required. Too bad because he was our last chance
I hope and pray you are correct. Despite the missteps, I have loved President Bush and his absolute respect for the job and its trappings. His emotion and honesty have always been apparent toward all members of our military. He is a decent, honorable man who “re-elevated” the status of the office after the despicable previous eight years.
Yep.
I have to think that today's media will eventually come to be seen in the same negative light as the "yellow journalists" that brought us the Spanish American war.
More than anything else, I think the long-term view of Bush's presidency will be shaped by its response to Islamism.
Mr. Bush faced the same sort of decisions that Neville Chamberlain did; and his decision could not have been more different from that of Mr. Chamberlain.
We need to be very clear about the fact that the Islamists are not going way anytime soon. They will continue in their violent ways, and they will probably even gain a few victories.
But in responding aggressively to Islamic terrorism, Bush set the tone for how the rest of the world will respond to terror; and he showed that it can be defeated. Unlike Nazi Germany, which was allowed to spread unchecked, the consequences of Mr. Bush's strategy has caused Islamist to become unwelcome even on their home ground. They don't have any unhindered breeding grounds.
Obama's naivete and arrogance can (and probably will) screw some things up pretty badly; but his mistakes will be judged against what Bush has done -- and will be corrected as best as possible by reverting to Bush's approach. Obama's successes (if any) will be judged in relation to how they diverged from or agreed with what Bush has put in place.
That's as good a working definition of "success" as one is likely to find in the real world.
Excellent points, thanks for sharing them with me.
>>Depends on who writes the history.<<
Thanks to the internet, that concept does not have the teeth it once had.
Most people though the Civil was was all about slavery. Most people now know better, thanks in great part to the ease with which people can get out the truth via the internet.
Without the internet, Kerry would most assuredly have gone down in history as a Vietnam war hero.
The times they are a changin’.
Amazing << Hear this. Feel this, and tell me that this isn't music.
And dont sleep on these two, either.
Bush’s biggest blunder was naively believing he could get Democrats to work with him honestly and constructively. By not eventually recognizing this impossibility, using his majority and bully pulpit to push through what was right while ignoring the howling from the left and letting the American people decide the value of it, he set the stage for today.
And it was made worse by his playing the “nice guy,” not smacking down the constant barrage of lies pushed by the left and parroted by the MSM about his administration. He allowed propaganda to become unchallenged fact. He should be familiar with the principle that silence equals assent.
And Jimmua the second will still be Jimmua the second.
I think not. The coming Hispanic majority in the country will certainly be a monument to his catastrophic presidency. Perhaps when their history of the 'reconquista' is written they will think of him as sort of their founding father. Perhaps their history will look kindly upon him.
Americans should have a very different view of him.
He has changed the demographic make up of this country forever. We now have a huge and growing population of people from the third world that are going out re-produce Americans and will be a huge voting block for the democratic party. As these people learn more and more that they can tax the rich (meaning the indigenous people who have wealth) they will do so. The government will be come even larger than it is now (hard to imagine). Bush ignored his constitutional duties to protect our border. In fact he encouraged the invasion (is that kind what traitors do?) He then sought to legalize millions of people who flooded into the country under his watch. That would have finished off the GOP. Well, actually that might be a good thing. Perhaps the GOP needs to die so we can have a conservative party again.
The debt our grandchildren will have from Jorge will also be an achievement that it will be hard to forget.
The nationalization of industry that Bush has pushed for is something that leftists in Latin American only dream of. Frankly, aside for Roberts and Alito (remember that he wanted Harriet Myers) there is very little that Bush did that was either conservative or successful. He could justly be called the most left-wing president in American history. He is expanded government power unlike anyone since his fellow catastrophic Texan Johnson.
I regret my votes for him more than most things. He and his fellow neoconservatives have destroyed what Goldwater, Nixon and Reagan built. May he go back to Texas and never be heard from again.
(chuckle)
Once you realize there isn’t a living human being in this nation that can trace their family history to beginning ‘here’ you stop freaking yourself out about ‘immigration’ (Legal immigration).
Even so called ‘native Americans’ came over the Bering Sea ‘land bridge’.
Second thought rereading your post to me. Bush wasn’t a Conservative. Nor was his father, and we didn’t have a viable Conservative this time around, just a guy from Arizona that played one in a few commercials from August til November....(chuckle)
But to say George W Bush was ‘the most left-wing President in history’ is simply ridiculous, given the competition for that title among the 42 President’s the proceeded him.
On to you regretting your vote for him. Ah, sorry, Algore as POTUS on and immediately after 9/11? No thanks.
John ‘Marriage is a Career path’ Kerry? Again, No thanks.
You play the hand you are dealt. As we know, even a weak hand (Bush 43) can, and will ‘win out’.
And as McLame just demonstrated, a bad hand is just that, a bad hand, and thats why you throw your cards back in and wait for the next deal.
Before you go about chuckling you might want to take a look at what America was before 1965. I am not 'freaked out'. I am merely stating facts. Bush has encouraged waves of people from the Third World into this country. You also throw the usual caveat about 'legal immigration'. It is pretty obvious from my post that I was talking about illegal Immigration.
Keep chuckling, you have President Barak Hussein Obama because of Bush.
Bush wasn’t a Conservative. Nor was his father, and we didn’t have a viable Conservative this time around, just a guy from Arizona that played one in a few commercials from August til November....(chuckle)
You seem to be ignorant of what it is to be a conservative and what it is to be a liberal. I'm not interested in educating you but you might want to ponder what Ronald Reagan said about government not being the solution to problems, that Government is the problem.
But to say George W Bush was ‘the most left-wing President in history’ is simply ridiculous, given the competition for that title among the 42 President’s the proceeded him.
Really? Did Clinton nationalize significant portions of the economy? Did he take tax dollars to 'bailout' wealthy Wall Street Banks? Again, do you know what conservatism is?
On to you regretting your vote for him. Ah, sorry, Algore as POTUS on and immediately after 9/11? No thanks.
I am certainly no fan of Algore. I think he would not have been a good president. He might even have been as bad as Bush. None of us know how he would have acted after 9-11. I doubt he would have had much of a choice but to hit Afghanistan. I doubt he would have gone to Iraq though.
I know the entire country traces its roots to another nations, other continents. I understand that was the ‘key’ to the last century being ‘America’s Time’.
I don’t fear immigration. Sorry. I’m a product of it.
As for daring to lecture me about what it is to be a Conservative....well,...thats very funny.
(chuckle)
Have a nice day.
....So we should let 20 million third worlders in and get them on the public dole.
Sounds very Bushy....but not conservative.
I don’t fear immigration. Sorry. I’m a product of it.
I don't 'fear' immigration either. You are projecting there. I believe that the United States has a national identity that should be preserved. We are not a multi-cultural playground that has no borders, no common language or common traditions. Liberals believe in multi-culturalism. Oh, and so does Bush.
As for daring to lecture me about what it is to be a Conservative....well,...thats very funny.
You are supporting a President who advocates the nationalization of the economny, spending so much money that our grandchildren will be in debted, and open borders. None of that is conservative. You might want to think about that...chuckle....
Have a great day.
The building of the Wall was under GW, the cranked-up ICE raids and E-Verify were implemented and the largest amount of illegal immigrant convictions and deportations were thanks to Bush.
Just because you're ignorant of the facts doesn't mean the truth isn't out there.
I know the entire country traces its roots to another nations, other continents. I understand that was the ‘key’ to the last century being ‘America’s Time’.
....So we should let 20 million third worlders in and get them on the public dole.
If you are going to make things up, then attribute them to me, you will end up looking ridiculous by the time this exchange is over between us. Don’t say you were not warned.
Sounds very Bushy....but not conservative.
Bush wasn’t a Conservative. Get your hearing checked.
I don’t fear immigration. Sorry. I’m a product of it.
I don’t ‘fear’ immigration either. You are projecting there. I believe that the United States has a national identity that should be preserved. We are not a multi-cultural playground that has no borders, no common language or common traditions. Liberals believe in multi-culturalism. Oh, and so does Bush.
Again, Bush isn’t a Conservative. That said, we are all from ‘other places’ including YOU.
As for daring to lecture me about what it is to be a Conservative....well,...thats very funny.
You are supporting a President who advocates the nationalization of the economny, spending so much money that our grandchildren will be in debted, and open borders. None of that is conservative. You might want to think about that...chuckle....
Again, making things up then attributing them to me in a public forum will end up with you looking ridiculous. This is the second example in this post.
Have a great day.
I usually do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.