Is George W. Bush a great president?

I believe history will record GW Bush as one of the great, strong Presidents in the mold of Truman and Reagan and Teddy and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Obviously there are many who disagree. Here is some back-and-forth on the subject between me, a commenter we'll call LC and one we will call HHM.

On the subject of George W Bush

LC - I think he started as a miserable failure, but has improved. But, in twenty-forty years, when we view him in retrospect, I think he'll be thought of as one of the worst presidents ever. He is missing a golden opportunity to cement his legacy in seriously investing in both alternative forms of energy(which, in his tenure has become overally evident that alt energy sources are a complete necessity moving forward) and stem cell research(we are falling so far behing countries like Singapore and China in stem cell research, which I feel is going to have huge reprecussions on the future).

Radaractive - Bush is one of the better presidents, who, like Reagan or Truman or FDR or Teddy Roosevelt, understands that there is a time to act and that time is a time to act with strength. What has happened on his watch?

9/11, very much a child of the failures of the Clinton administration (watch the ABC special on 9/11 next Monday and you see that Clinton decided to let Osama go and handcuffed the FBI/CIA by erecting the "Gorelick wall") took place and the President recognized it as an act of war. Since then the US has helped Afghanistan become a sovereign nation not run by terrorists and is attempting to oversee the same thing in Iraq.

The economy - booming, with a low rate of unemployment and growing GNP despite the gas price problems.

Stem cell research. There are all the stem cells available anyone wants. This is actually a fake issue.

Alternate forms of energy are being developed and alternate means of transportation are as well. Nothing will work unless it is economically feasible. The Bush administration has encouraged this research.

Meanwhile, eco-nuts have blocked us from harvesting oil in Alaska and off-shore that would help us have less dependence on foreign oil, while at the same time decrying our dependence on foreign oil. The same eco-nuts pushed the Clinton administration into championing tree harvesting laws that hurt the timber industry in the west while inviting wide-scale forest fires. Modern harvesting of trees brings about new forestation. When we don't harvest, the timber becomes more likely to be cleared by fire. Nature likes to redo forests and if we don't make a buck doing it, she will do it on her own.

Thank God we don't have a President who takes the United Nations approach to terrorism (You wouldn't want to be in Darfur right now) which is appeasement followed by stern warnings followed by...nothing.

LC - Really? Hmmmm....you consider Afghanistan a success? Maybe in the light of what is happening in Iraq...maybe since Iraq was such a failure we(the American Public) don't notice the problems happening in Afghanistan. Or maybe you do see what has happened in Afghanistan if you read the news. (see below)

I have more thoughts on what you said, but am tired and will respond later.


"NY TIMES wrote:
Opium Harvest at Record Level in Afghanistan
"


Radaractive - Funny how the poppy trade, which has gone on for many,many centuries, is suddenly the problem of the Bush administration? Review time:

Let's see, the idea was to help Afghanistan become self-ruling. Done. The poppy problem has been given to the UN for oversight and what have they accomplished? Zippo. The Taliban is no longer ruling in Afghanistan and their power depends in part on poppy sales. It will be a long struggle to overcome that history and replace poppy fields with other crops. But taking Afghanistan from the Taliban and giving it over to the rule of the people was an important step in that process. Therefore, when the USA helped Afghanistan establish self-governance it was a big win for freedom, against terrorism and, eventually, the poppy trade. I would think anyone who is not steeped in liberal propaganda can clearly see this is true.

HHM - Well, I went with disaprove. For me it's more of the social issues than Iraq/War on Terrorism...because from my stand point we all want Saddam dealt with and terrorism ended, but we all have different views as far as timing and stratagy.

However, when I look at how he's shelled out money to religious groups to teach sex ed in Africa, his choices for supreme court, his regard for percieved "safety" over rights, how he's publically gone out of his way to address anti-abortion groups to voice support, his allowence of private American companies to use Iraq as a goldmine, and how he has dealt with bettering our schools by coercing teachers to abide by a certain cirriculum to avoid the ax and attempts to push parents and children into private school structures through "No Child Left Behind" legislation and just grit my teeth and cringe from the meer sight of him.

I like one, very sole thing about him...he (and the cons. in the senate for that matter) let the assault weapon ban die.


Radaractive - "However, when I look at how he's shelled out money to religious groups to teach sex ed in Africa,"

You don't think AIDS in Africa is a problem? Wow. Funding sex education in Africa is a large part of beating that epidemic. The level of ignorance among common folks in much of Africa regarding sex is astounding. Did you know that many still believe that having sex with a virgin cures AIDS???! The Bush administration is funding several initiatives to help save lives in Africa and whether any of them are associated with religious groups is not germane to the primary objective, which is to stop the spread of AIDS in Africa and around the globe. The Bush administration is spending more on the prevention of AIDS in Africa than any previous administration.

"his choices for supreme court,"

Picking strict constructionist judges over activist judges. It needed (and needs to be done), unless you like recent Supreme Court decisions like allowing municipalities to foreclose on private properties at a whim...

"his regard for percieved "safety" over rights,"

So you think that tapping conversations with terrorists is a violation of my rights? Pathetic! Political nonsense! (I before e except after c, by the way.) The President has always had the power to order such wiretapping long before anyone invented the acronym, FISA. I am sure the courts will rule in his (and our) favor. If not, hope the next terrorist attack makes you feel good about having all your "rights" in order!

"how he's publically gone out of his way to address anti-abortion groups to voice support,"

Which shows that he is a man of personal conviction. A baby depends on his father and mother for protection. When the father/mother seek to murder the baby, who will stand up for HIS rights? You worry about your "right" to speak with a terrorist without being overheard but could care less about the right for a child to live? Again, pathetic! I believe abortion is the biggest black mark on the report card of our nation. I am glad that Bush is no Dick Durbin or Al Gore, politicians who were once anti-abortion before taking aim at the national stage and suddenly having a change of heart, leading to more votes...and revealing them to be opportunists with questionable convictions.

"his allowence of private American companies to use Iraq as a goldmine,"

This falls into the category of urban myth. Just exactly how (show us links to prove your assertion) George Bush benefits from private companies doing business in Iraq any more than you or I?

"and how he has dealt with bettering our schools by coercing teachers to abide by a certain cirriculum to avoid the ax and attempts to push parents and children into private school structures through "No Child Left Behind" legislation and just grit my teeth and cringe from the meer sight of him."

The fact that you have difficulty spelling several of your words indicates that "No Child Left Behind" was too late in your case. Meer? Cirriculum? Aaargh! We need some kind of standards for schools and some kind of measure for teachers to ensure that our kids are actually learning. Teachers may complain that they are being forced to teach up to standards, but that is just too bad. If we had a national voucher program, all parents would have choices concerning what schools their kids could attend and the schools would then consider merit in the hiring and promotion of their faculty. How is it that in other professions we applaud standards of learning and performance but liberals want teachers to be excluded? Could it be the big bucks given to liberal politicians by teachers unions?

I'm sorry, but your entire post is unsubstantiated opinion bereft of factual content. You have every right to your beliefs, however, I challenge them - many on a factual basis. Prove me wrong!

~~~~~~~

Is George W Bush a great president? I think so. The closer you are to the times, the harder it is to judge. In retrospect, we can clearly see that JFK was terrific and LBJ was, conversely, a horror. Yet LBJ won the 1964 election rather easily.

However the debate goes, though, I hope that commenters are better educated than poor HHM. If Harry Reid said that Unicorns live in his backyard, would HHM believe that, too?