(Politics) It's 2108. How does history view the George W. Bush Adminstration?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I think that 100 years from now, he may be considered a sympathetic figure who was manipulated or mislead by his advisors. As was mentioned earlier, view of situations change as we get more information once things are declassified. I think we'll find that some of the decisions that Dubya made were based on incomplete data created by an intelligence culture that was horribly mismanaged and a cabinet who didn't give him the best of advice. I do think that the after-effect of the Iraq intelligence failure helped Bush get the intelligence community back on track, but we won't see the effects of that for many years due to the secretive nature of the group.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I agree that he wont be seen as a sympathetic figure. He was the President of the United States of America. The Leader of the Free World. The Most Powerful Man on the planet. If he chose evil/incompotent advisors and was unable to stand up to them or was unduly influenced by them, if he couldn't manage his cabinet, and his administration couldn't properly decipher good data from bad before deciding to send thousands of Americans to their death, then those are series flaws with the Bush, himself.

The buck stops in the Oval Office. Remember he was "The Decider." A lot can be said about a person based on the people her/she chooses to surround themselves with and the people whose advice he/she heeds.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I think that 100 years from now, he may be considered a sympathetic figure who was manipulated or mislead by his advisors.

So kind of like President Grant?

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Don't get carried away I said he presided over the beginning of the end, not that he had much to do with it.

Well, he had everything to do with the war on Iraq, which for most of his term was regarded as his biggest failing by most Americans. I think it became synonymous with the war on terror in the minds of many Americans which, combined the continued breathing of Bin Laden, will be regarded as a failure. I think no matter what happens with the war from this point on, Bush's war on terror will be regarded a failure, due to the failure to bring down Bin Laden. Silly, perhaps, and symbolic, almost certainly, but that's the way I think it will read.

You can argue that the recent economic downturn he had little to do with. Some will agree others will disagree. But, I think history will lay that at his feet too, and his presidency will end up being regarded a dismal failure overall.

[SFL Cat]

Depends if we get hit by terrorists under Obama.

[Daimyo]

I hate his performance as president and already see him as a sympathetic figure. I have no doubt he meant well with everything he did and truly believed he was making the right decisions. Unfortunately he just wasn't competent enough for the office and didn't surround himself with the right people.

At the end of the day though, that doesn't make his administration any less of a failure and it certainly doesn't make him a better president.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Daimyo

I hate his performance as president and already see him as a sympathetic figure. I have no doubt he meant well with everything he did and truly believed he was making the right decisions. Unfortunately he just wasn't competent enough for the office and didn't surround himself with the right people.

At the end of the day though, that doesn't make his administration any less of a failure and it certainly doesn't make him a better president.

Pretty fair assessment. I'd also note that you didn't put a name in your post and as I was reading it, everything you mentioned seems to ring true with how I believe the Obama presidency will be looked upon, though I think the problems will be mostly domestic in regards to Obama.

[Cringer]

I am by no means a Presidential historian so I won't attempt to rank him. I do know ISiddiqui's comments about Grant has me wanting to look into him. I still have this "childhood view" of thinking Grant was a good President because of a report I did on him in Elementary school which I am sure had nothing to do with his actual Presidency and more to do with him being a General in the Civil War.

I am surprised no one has said the obvious. I just heard a long clip that had about 25-30 sound bites of Bush making no sense at all, destroying the English language. I think that is part of his legacy, without a doubt it will be over the next 15-25 years. How much that fades after that I don't know...

[stevew]

In history, we'll all be dead anyways.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Cringer

I am by no means a Presidential historian so I won't attempt to rank him. I do know ISiddiqui's comments about Grant has me wanting to look into him. I still have this "childhood view" of thinking Grant was a good President because of a report I did on him in Elementary school which I am sure had nothing to do with his actual Presidency and more to do with him being a General in the Civil War.

Grant is generally (no pun intended) seen as a poor President, who basically let his cabinet officials run amok and engage in massive corruption. However, he was a great man in the rest of his life and his memoirs are considered to be one of the greatest works in American history. Goes to show that even great men aren't necessarily the greatest Presidents (see also: Jimmy Carter, Herbert Hoover).