With the passage of time many things become or are seen as better than they were. Sometimes we look back and imagine them as worse than they were. When we pine for the old days sometimes we choose to ignore the bad in sake of relishing the good. Andrew Jackson is seen by some as a great president. Under his administration Native Americans suffered under relocation and the Trail of Tears. John F. Kennedy is seen as oen of the greatest presidents despite the Cuban missile crisis and the Bay of Pigs.

1. Is it possible that President Bush's Administration will be seen with a kinder eye than we see it now?
2. If so how many years do you think will have to pass?

1. Is it possible that President Bush's Administration will be seen with a kinder eye than we see it now?

Absolutely not- I bet it will go down as one of the top three worst presidencies of all time.

When you look at an administration from a historical perspective- you have to ask yourself, what made history regard an administration AS bad?

Andrew Johnson- I would pretty much set GWs administration as pretty much the = in comparison to that particular administration- incompetance, ideology run wild, cronyism and corruption taken to such levels that we had to redefine the term, that kind of thing. Also, Andrew Johnson was a minority pres, IIRC< and was also impeached- but on more strictly political ground IIRC.

But you have all the recipe's for a truly bad presidency in one administration-

You have some of the most runaway corruption and cronyism, taken to new unforseen hieghts- this administration is defined by it's appointments of people by loyalty- NOT ability. You can chock up the Katrina mess to that, for example.

You have runaway ideology that is more important than results and the real world and practical applications- GW has been more in this direction than any prez in history, to the point of stubbornly not admitting he has done nothing wrong and not changing game plans based on any kind of reality

On top of that, the ideology is quite bad, melding the worst parts of several philosophies for AMerican society- "compasionate conservatism"- what the heck is that anyway? You spend too much money, borrow and spend, to lesson freedoms of every american? That is almost wierdly stupid.

You have gross incompetance in the extreme, to the point of near caricuture of incompetance, like dilbert would write about or something.


2. If so how many years do you think will have to pass?

I would bet big money that in 50 years he will settle into an example of the worst president in US history, barring someone even worse coming along than GW.

I don't think there is any hyperbole' that is enough to describe how bad this administration has been, and how much fun it is to call people that voted for him TWICE lots of names and point and laugh.

You can see what he has even done to his own party- 6 short years ago, he had control of both houses, the supreme court was stacked in his favor, and he didn't have to even think about a veto- he got everything he wanted for a lap dog congress and house.

Yet, he still managed to suck out loud. He ran the economy into the ground- to the point we are once again bailing out financial institutions (why do republican presidents have a habit of having to do this anyway? )

We have bled out more financiallly in his administration than any in US history-for no return,

You have the corruption of the Clinton Administration without the competance, you have the behavior of a Reagan after a landslide, with a minority win.

You have the big spending of the 70s liberal democrats- without even the thought of any more revenue.

You are willing to spend trillions on another nation, with money you will NEVER see a return on- while say "we can't afford it" when a bill for health care for US children are in need.

And on and on- it is just TOO easy.

1. Is it possible that President Bush's Administration will be seen with a kinder eye than we see it now?

I don't know to tell you the truth, that guy get the worst wrap I've ever seen or heard of a president getting. Much of the criticism is well placed and valid, he is a poor president by my standards. However some of the things I hear people single this guy out for makes me laugh. At this point it doesn't even tick me off like it once did when he is compared to the likes of someone like Adolf Hitler. It is amusing though, sometimes I think some liberals go to bed just thinking of things they can assume about Bush. Bush is to some liberals what a pinata is to a bat basically The latest trick is to try and associate other Republican candidates to the Bush they helped label and sell to left wing America, lol Its like an easy way to continue the effort of political rhetoric with the opposing political party, without having to come up with new stories and conspiracy theories, and thats brilliant. I have to give it to some of the dedicated left wingers out there for proving to be quite cunning nowadays. Some of them want that presidency so bad they can taste it, mmmmmmm presidency yummy. lol

1. Is it possible that President Bush's Administration will be seen with a kinder eye than we see it now?


Bush got the "worst wrap?" Did a poor technician do the job or did he get a bad rap on the noggin when he fell off the exercise, uh make that mountain bike?


I agree, but Bush is the only president we had during your adult lifetime, so where do your standards come from?


One does not have to compare Bush to Hitler, to point out his bungling ineptness.


I don't assume much about Bush. I do go to bed worrying about what fool thing Bush will do next, but I don't assume anything particular because his inepness usually surprises me.


Now that's a pretty good idea. This Halloween I'm going to have a party featuring Bush piñatas.


I don't think it's going to be hard to sell the Democratic Party's candidate to the left. The middle and independents will be the key.


Pointing out Bush's failures and McCain's embracing of some of them are not "stories" and "conspiracy theories." Attempts to tie Democrats to left-wingers is like trying to make Republicans right wingers. It's a partial truth.


Are you trying to tell us that McCain is running, but doesn't covet the presidency as much as Obama or Clinton? Did Bush, and more so Karl Rove, not yearn for the White House in 2000 and 2004? Remember, Rove and the likes of TomDeLay wanted a "permanent" Republican majority. Losing in 2008 does not perpetuate the move to permanence.

1. Is it possible that President Bush's Administration will be seen with a kinder eye than we see it now?

Bush chose a path [with the complicity of most Democrats] of a non-essential invasion of a non-threatening nation. History will not be kind to the man responsible for the expenditure, carnage and death that has been wrought in Iraq. Hindsight always has more clarity than the present, but in the case of Iraq, hindsight continues to cast an ever growing shadow over the Bush presidency.

Bush should consider himself lucky if his presidency is remembered as fondly as Jimmy Carter's. He has presided over the largest increase in the size and scope of the Federal government since FDR's New Deal; he has presided over the largest set of intrusive measures against American citizens in recent memory; and he has presided over the Republican Party's decline from the heady days of Reagan and the Contract with America.....to a party that is virtually indistinguishable from the Democrats except for military hegemony.

Bush is not responsible for all that ails our nation, but his policies have worked in direct contravention to the ideals of liberty for its citizens.

History will probably be easier on Bush, but not because any of his decisions will turn out to be good ones in the long run. Rather, it will be more like looking back at a terrible hurricane that happened 10 or 20 years ago, in that there is no way to really convey the acute pain of the moment. In 30 or 40 years, the gas prices, the stock downturns, the deficits, the foreclosures, and the war casualties will all be peaks and valleys on graphs. But right now, real people are truly suffering.

BoF






Why its gotta be like that, lol? I'm 25 but I can read, I know what makes a good or a bad president, and I have standards. From history my two favorites would have to be Ronald Regan, and John F. Kennedy. For some very specific reasons.


No kidding, but they do it anyway don't they?



Well it doesn't surprise me, I expect him to come up short at this point. Although he has some qualities that I have to give him credit for, the primary thing is his consistency on issues like the war, despite the bad press and bad approval ratings he gets for it, he never wavered. If only his strategies, and communication skills were as solid as his convictions than he would be in good shape, problem is I don't think he knows what the hell he's doing half the time, he was a rather young unexperienced president when he came in 8 years ago. If I remember right I think Bill Clinton and Bush were the two youngest presidents in history.


Lol, shucks i'm giving you ideas.


Well some on the left now were once independents 8 years ago, the democratic party has grown. The 2 primary reasons for this I think was most of all a failing republican presidency, and secondly left wing propagandist that were willing to over exploit this failing presidency. There are 100's of examples I could give you but you would probably naturally deny that the left has distorted anything regarding George Bush or conservatives. It would be like trying to explain atheism to the pope.


Democrats consist primarily of liberals and Republicans consist primarily of Conservatives. Thats a fact, there are exceptions of course like the moderates. I consider myself a borderline Conservative/Moderate .

The thing is many people on the left have desperately tried to associate Republicans like McCain or Huckabee with George Bush. Thats a strategy to hurt the opposing political party, but the truth is there are distinct differences in these candidates. Do they support similar things? In many cases yes, but they have different policies and ideas about how to accomplish these things. McCain for example had strong opposition to the Rumsfeld strategy in Iraq and frequently spoke out against some of bushes tactics, and for good reason. Just because two candidates support the same thing, doesn't mean they would both go about accomplishing it the same way. Of course thats what many on the left want the world to assume, which is why I have to hear about it every other day, so there some pretty clever dedicated left wingers out there with all kinds of assumptions. Oh well some conservatives are just as guilty of that, the world of politics is a dirty place, and many don't mind playing dirty thats for surel.


Ahh, but I wasn't talking about the candidates man, the candidates are applying for the job of commander and chief themselves, so of course they want it. What I was implying was that millions of liberals and democrats who have had to deal with the fact that 5 of the last 7 presidents have been republican, want their party to have that seat so bad they can taste it themselves. Thats why so many of them are coming out of the woodworks now which is fine until SOME, of them start manipulating the truth to reach the top. There are so many people out there who want nothing more than to push forward their beliefs that anything becomes fair. Comparing Bush to terrorist? Thats become Fair. Calling a 5 star General a liar? Thats become Fair. Silencing conservative talk show host? Thats become Fair, in fact they call that the Fairness doctrine, no telling how many millions want that passed. What else is supposedly fair? Well I could write a book about it and not cover all of the retarded stuff I've heard in the last few years. It is a two way street I'll admit, and many conservatives play the same shallow game, but the presidency is the liberals to gain, and I think some will say anything, and demonize anyone to see their party prevail. That seems to be the game of politics for far too many.

1) Yes, it's possible.

2) Twenty-five years, perhaps. Historians will look upon this war (and hence the Bush admin) favorably if this war preserves a long-term American military and special ops/intel presence in the heart of the Middle East with few conditions tied to it (as opposed to our presence in Saudi Arabia, Qatar or Kuwait) and this presence leads to our ability to project self-interested power for decades to come. If this power can cause some long-term denouement to the tensions in Palestine and stabilize the oil fields, then the Bush admin will be viewed in an even better light.

This would go double if our power position can help preserve dollar hegemony in the oil trade, but I think this is doubtful--a good result, but doubtful.

If 25 years from now this war appears to be an expensive boondoogle with no positive realpolitik results, then not only will the war be viewed as failure, and with it the Bush admin, but all of the other factors--attack without sufficient provocation, loss of privacy, neo-con philosophy, torture allegations, etc.--will be added to the broth to rate the Bush admin in the lower 25% of all pres. admin.

A wild card will be how well the next few admin handle the war with radical Islam; if they follow Bush's aggressive lead and it works, then Bush will be seen as a leader in a series of steps in a successful policy addressing this issue.

Other than the war and counter-terrorism, I do not think most historians in 25 years will find other issues during the Bush admin like the economy, domestic programs like "no-child left behind", etc., as worth more than a footnote.

Net- we have had a debate on this board, perhaps even several, discussing the link between Hitler and Bush. There are similarities, and stark differences as well- some have called Bush "Hitler-lite", because of the obviuos part, he hasn't actually had death camps with millions of people killed in them



That being said- in a historical leader comparo- anyone in our goverment that is very leftist goverment will naturually make comparisons to various communist leaders, and on the right- natural comparisons to fascist leaders.

It is only intellectually lazy if you lump them in as "exactly" or say they are actually BEING nazi.

Fascism, like socialism, has evolved quite a bit, and I see these forces competing at the global level to some degree.

Okay- comparisons to Hitler and Bush?

1) Was not elected by a majority of his people, then consolidated power once in power- Bush was not supported by a majority of the people, however, he was unable to consolidate power past the natural term limit- unless I am proven wrong by a coup? - Since the military pretty much uniformly hates him now as well, I seriously doubt that will happen.

2) Started a war over false or misleading claims- Hitler had Poland, Bush had Iraq.

3) The comparison ends around 1938-ish, prior to the Bltzkrieg. But it is NOT dishonest to compare Hitler and Bush prior to 1938, except, really, Hitler was not a coward like Bush- Hitler served with some distinction in WW1


In some ways- I would say that today's neo-cons are more on the pattern of perhaps Franco's type of fascism instead of German Fascism. But not really either.

this is the problem with the negative connotations of a definitions and the actual definitions. "Communism" tends to have the connotation of automatically being a totalitarian state- whereas capitalism seems to have a connotation of a completely free state.

Well, neither are true- Singapore is possibly one of the free-est economies in the world, while having a totalitarian regime that regulates every aspect of private and public life.

I do think it muddies the discussion on GWs total incompetence when you compare him to Hitler in the Nazi- esque connotation, but if the debate moves past that and into bracketing a new or even more accurate definition of modern fascism, I think you get a more honest picture of this administrations basic ideologies.

I would define modern Fascism as GWs administration, possible the pinnacle, the very example, of what modern fascism has taken- a type of corporate rule balanced by competeing corporate interests that really doesn't even care about the welfare of the state or it's citizens at all beyond what they provide for the corporate world- I think that is a very balanced and true definition of the GW ideology- but he is simply not competent enough to be a "hitler"- thank gawd.

I'm not going to disembowel net's post line-by-line. CR did a pretty good job of that.

I have just one request net2007. Would you please make us a list of all the scholarly books you have read on the presidents, especially Reagan and Kennedy?

I disagree. Historians and historiographers have been fairly consistant in their review of the colonial powers throughout the ages. What Bush and Neo-cons are vying for, and what you are supporting in your post, is exactly representative of those powers. Whether economic, military or both......honest history literature over the next few decades will likely document American quest for hegemony on par with Britain of the 18th and 19th centuries.

BTW Net, there are no 5 star Generals [known as Generals of the Armies].

CruisingRam



Most of which are exaggerated and hold little meaning that is accurate. I don't compare any leader of this nation Ive read about to Adolf Hitler, not even the ones I dislike. Its unproductive, childish, and inaccurate. You make these broad comparisons because its whats convenient for you to do, you think of one of the worst, most despicable human beings ever to have existed on earth, then you you take a president who is highly conservative, which you are not, then you proceed to make comparisons between the two, yea thats convenient. For you that would be convenient given what your general opinion on conservatives has been. Lets look at some of these comparisons of yours.....



What are you talking about? Was not elected by the majority of his people? What is this in reference to the voters that elected him and then reselected him? Am I missing something, or just misunderstanding you? Explain yourself a little more.



I don't think so, this is like when you tried to compare the Reichstag fire to 9/11. None of this is relevant to Hitler unless you assume Bushes motives were the same as Hitlers, and thats what people like you have to do is assume. Thats all you do is assume. You assume congress did not willingly fund the war with Bush, either that or you assume bush knowingly lied to convince his country to go to war, something I've actually had fun waiting for someone here to substantiate. Who knows maybe you also assume over half the country didn't support that same war.

I'm not religious, but if there is a hell it was made for people like Hitler. Hitler wanted complete elimination of the Jews, that was largely his motivation in WW2.
So what your assuming, is that bush again is a liar, his main goal was not to liberate Iraq, but to kill innocent people because he doesn't like diversity. The way Bush executed the war wasn't the same as Hitler, the way he got support was not the same as Hitler, and most importantly his motives weren't even remotely close to Hitlers which makes all other attempts at a real comparison moot here.



Hitler blew his head off after taking cyanide, probably one of the most cowardly acts a man can commit is suicide, oh yea after being responsible for more death than any other human being ever to have existed at that. Not a Coward? Id have to argue.






So in other words Bush would be Hitler if he was as Competent as Hitler was? Listen I don't care for George Bush as president, Ive said it again and again but I notice little things you choose not to notice, you see what you want basically. What Ive seen is a man who was in tears over the loss of a soldier whom he likely never even knew........ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../12/wiraq12.xml However you say his ideology is one that doesn't even care about the welfare of the state or it's citizens? People need to wake up and smell what their shoveling sometimes, because it doesn't smell good if you ask me. Whatever happened to honest criticism, or saying I don't agree with this person? Its not enough for you to disagre, or even critisise him for his many shortcomings, Bush to you has to be comparable to Hitler thats a trip man. Well I respectfully disagre, have a good one



Dontreadonme



My bad 4 star generals

BoF


My knowledge of politics is school, internet, and television based primarily. Why is it your asking did you want to quiz me? lol

You are also assuming that historians will judge Bush on his motives instead of his actions. Many leaders throughout history thought they were doing right by their nation or their people, only to later be considered differently, and by the norms of later times.



Are we still talking about Bush? GW Bush?

School, the internet and TV huh? Well, that does say a lot.

Hitler did not win the majority of the votes, and used parlementary tactics to form a coalition that ran over the other parties- as Bush did not win the popular vote here in 2000 net- you are aware of that, correct?

Well, net history and politics (political science) are two different academic disciplines. You said you could read, so I was trying to find out if you do.

I think you gave me the answer I anticipated.

So, to answer your question, I was a teacher and gave quizzes to students. I don't, however, have any desire to work free. Sorry, you are just out of luck.

Net, if you were truly a student of history, you wouldn't be dismissing every comparison to Hitler simply because Hitler turned out to be as evil as he was. There are still lessons to be learned from Hitler's rise to power and the events leading up to WWII. Germany was a civilized country that was manipulated into doing the unthinkable.

Since 2000, some very unlikely things have transpired in this country, also. The 2000 election was the first in my lifetime to raise serious questions about the integrity of the election. You had the unprovoked invasion of Iraq, quite possibly justified on false pretenses. Domestic warrantless wiretaps. Guantanamo, holding prisoners without access to the courts, torture. A tremendous consolidation of power by the Executive branch. Unprecedented secrecy by the administration.

Now, we have been through all of this before, and you are always dismissive of these things - as often as you claim to be a moderate who finds fault with the Bush administration, there aren't many on AD who defend him as staunchly as you do. But do not let the fact that this is America give you a false sense of security - the same things that happened in Germany can happen here, too. I'm not talking about wiping out the Jews and invading Poland - but the consolidation of power in the Executive, the demonizing of a group of people to whip up nationalistic feelings, the subjugation of individual freedoms in the name of "security" - and a trumped-up war to tie it all together. It has already happened. The comparisons are neither unproductive, childish, nor inaccurate. Try to get past the visceral feelings that the name Adolph Hitler evokes, and learn from history.

Net- what johnfromcleveland did was point out the intellectual debate over the rise of fascism in Germany and the end of the republic- as far as how he did it- it is not dishonest to compare those mechanicisms.

What is dishonest to squelch all debate on those ways to achieve power outright without looking at the historical ways that an older power system fell to a newer one, and if we are seeing similar "game plans".

Simularities:

1) Used nationalism and scapegoats to fuel hatred towards those that did not buy into thier personal political party- calling them "unpatriotic"

2) Was not elected on a popular vote- came to power through a back-door somewhat obscure proccess.

3) Kept claiming "enemies of the state" to extend executive powers.

4) Lied about a war

5) Used the excuse of war to further limit personal freedoms

6) Used excuse of war to erode the power of the charter (constitution) of that nation.

So, then what saved the US from the awful spread of this grip of insane nationalism?

I believe it was our diversity and size that did it- Germany was not a diverse nation, almost completely homogenous, and, compared to the US, is geographically smaller and the population more dense.

And, the entire GW administration is and was completely incompetant, and Hitler's cadre' was insanely competent, to Germaniy's great shame.

We were saved from the grip of insane nationalism? When did that happen? If it happened, it must have come after the 2004 election.

In fact, I think "Insane Nationalism" is McCain's platform.

Hmmm, I would say "slightly mentally ill" nationalism when compared to how far the right wingers in Germany took it.

Being stubborn is not a quality, it's a deficiency. Kind of like your spelling, he gets for it, unexperienced and If you remember right. Is this English? I'm not really sure, but I can say this; you don't remember "right." From memory I know that Teddy Roosevelt, Kennedy, and Clinton, were the three youngest Presidents, after that I had to go to Wikipedia and found that Bush Jr. was actually the 20th youngest President. Source
Your argument for Bush's strength is really his weakness; the inability to adapt. When his plans were not working, he was slow to make adjustments. Bush increased the troop level in 2006, three years after the war started. It was not until the Republican party was trounced in the mid-term elections did he even consider making changes. After the elections, Rumsfeld was let go. The Baker-Hamilton report came out and then he decided to increase the troop level.


It's not a trick that people are voting for Democrats. It's the economy. Gas prices have almost tripled, which is sending the cost of goods and services up for everything. The only thing that isn't going up is wages. If the economy was booming, nobody would care about the war. The fact is that Bush has screwed up the economy. People are suffering, both Republicans and Democrats.

(FYI - Left-wing is not a political ideology, it's a position on a hockey team. The left-wing label was created so that people like you don't have to think. All you need to know is left-wing bad, kind of like fire for Frankenstein, only he was slightly more intelligent.)

Again, it's not the failing Presidency. It's not the left-wing propaganda. It's the economy. When has there ever been a President that was thrown out of office during economic prosperity? Never. How about during economic difficulty? In recent history, it's been all of them; Herbert Hoover, Jimmy Carter, and George H.W. Bush. If we could throw G-dub out, we would have. Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity will have you believe the American people are being tricked. But I ask you, were the American people tricked when foreclosures hit an all-time high? Were the American people tricked when gas prices hit $3 a gallon? Were the American people tricked when Bear Stearns went belly up? Were the American people tricked when the Feds dropped the interest rate twice in the last quarter? Were the American people tricked when the US lost 63,000 jobs in February? The answer is no, they weren't. If the questions were about the Iraq War, would the answer be the same?


It's Commander-in-Chief, not commander and chief. And there's no such thing as a 5-star general. If you plan on writing about all the retarded stuff you have heard, please have someone edit that book. Your use of punctuation marks, sentence structure, spelling and random capitalization is horrifying.

(FYI - Republican and Democrat are proper nouns. You are supposed to capitialize proper nouns. Thats is a contraction of that is, hence the need for an apostrophe, such as that's poor grammar. Get it?)

1. Is it possible that President Bush's Administration will be seen with a kinder eye than we see it now?

Great question! I do think the current passion expressed against the president will subside to a degree. I say this because the highlights of Bush's presidency will really only be considered by historians and diplomats. I have a rather dim view of the populace in general because of their lack of historical context, and how the Gallup polls are already forgetting mistakes of Bush's first term. This is not the United States of America, rather it is the United States of Amnesia as Gore Vidal likes to put it.

I think history will sit back and characterize Bush as symptomatic of his time. His tenure will most likely be seen as the pinnacle of world wide corruption, cronyism, and dysfunction. Obviously this doesn't speak well of the people - and to be frank, nor should it.


2. If so how many years do you think will have to pass?

I'm giving it four years provided no more wars are started. Should another war occur in the 2008-12 timeframe the legacy of angst will be extended.

barnaby2341


Barnaby2341, you just made policy and tactics into one thing when they are two separate issues, you went through all that trouble to correct a spelling error, only to fail to follow it up with any real relevant point to what I was saying. I said that a quality of president bushes is that he never wavered from his support on the war despite bad press, and low approval ratings. I didn't say that one of his qualities was the tactics he used on the field, in fact I often speak out against them. Bush as a young rather unexperienced president, aparently the 20th youngest, in any case has more faults than he does positive qualities, but I'll point out those qualities. Also, is he a stubborn president? yes he is stubborn, but thats in relation to his methods not his fundamentals.



Im not singling out liberals on this, before you even replied to that this is something else I wrote, its more specific.......

the democratic party has grown. The 2 primary reasons for this I think was most of all a failing republican presidency, and secondly left wing propagandist that were willing to over exploit this failing presidency. There are 100's of examples I could give you but you would probably naturally deny that the left has distorted anything regarding George Bush or conservatives. It would be like trying to explain atheism to the pope.

Now this line...........

(FYI - Left-wing is not a political ideology, it's a position on a hockey team. The left-wing label was created so that people like you don't have to think. All you need to know is left-wing bad, kind of like fire for Frankenstein, only he was slightly more intelligent.)

People like me? Ok find where I said left wing = bad, or where Ive ever even implied it. This is me recently in antoher forum and its pretty consistant with other comments I make regarding liberals and conservatives.........

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...mp;#entry241528

Hmm well I'm republican so naturally I favor their politics, but both parties have some notable core values that can either be used to help the nation, or be used to sell a candidate while accomplishing little. Its one thing to speak of change and commitment to making America a better place, to deliver on those promises because you believe in them is whats important. Every administration is different, so its much easier to make an opinion on a candidate or president, than an entire party. Although in my lifetime it appears nearly everyone is coming up short.


However barnaby2341 I do give criticism where I believe its needed. The truth is Many in left wing America have made gross exaggeration on this president, as well as claim things they can never prove, Ive seen candidates do this, and Ive seen posters do this, and it is one of the latest tricks up their sleeves to associate candidates like McCain with the Bush that they helped sell to whoever was willing to buy it. If your not willing to admit there is bias, corruption, and manipulation amongst liberals, well actually its not surprising since your (very liberal) but as a conservative I'll say that sort of thing exist amongst conservatives, and I'll say that without hesitation.





Well its interesting to hear you say its not a failing presidency helping the democratic party to grow, its a failing economy, and then you reference George Bush as being part of the problem, shown in bold. I don't know what your getting at here, but personally I think all three factors, are playing a role in helping the democratic party grow. A failing presidency, left wing propaganda, the economy, and of course other things like the war, and all these things are tied together. Over anything though its a failing republican presidency, followed by the exploitation that surrounds it. I see the problem as much more than one or two things, but Bush really has messed up in a lot of areas.


(FYI - Republican and Democrat are proper nouns. You are supposed to capitialize proper nouns. Thats is a contraction of that is, hence the need for an apostrophe, such as that's poor grammar. Get it?)

lol, oh lord, well I know you were able to read all of that, and yes I do misspell some words, and don't always use a caps where needed, sometimes I even voluntarily use more than one question mark to illustrate that the question is important, which is technically improper. However Its more than ledgable and given this is a forum debate room, personally I don't have the time to take it as seriously as a 12th grade book report. Thats because I come here in my spare time and I'm not getting graded nor am I writing a book, so I suggest getting over it. well, have a nice day.

JohnfrmCleveland



Are their certain similarities with some aspects of bushes presidency, and the Germany of the 1940's ruled under Hitler? Perhaps so, but here is the delima.
I don't believe that people compare Bush to Hitler because the two have that much in common, they do it because Adolph Hitler is one of the most despised human beings ever to have walked the earth, and George Bush is their target to demonize, its that simple. I wasn't born yesterday, take Cruisingram for example, up their spinning that Bush did not win the popular vote so that is something he shares in common with Hitler. Is that a valid and fair comparison? Not remotely, for one this assumes that our voting process mirrors Germany's which it doesn't. It also assumes Bush didn't win the popular vote in 2004, which he did. There are holes in darn near every one of these comparisons Ive heard, so people make the comparisons between Hitler and Bush because it serves their political agenda, not because the two are strikingly similar.

Above you tell me that........ Try to get past the visceral feelings that the name Adolph Hitler evokes, and learn from history." Well I see Hitler as Hitler, and Bush as Bush however Is their something you could perhaps learn from the history and nature of political bias in America? There is no other reason these comparisons are being attempted other than Hitler being who he was. George bush could have as much in common with the Prime minister of Greenland, as he does with Hitler, for all I know, but why is it Hitler is chosen to compare with the leader of the free world almost solely by the opposing political party he represents? Lol, because this is typical political rhetoric is all it is.

CruisingRam


Yes but this is irrelevant, the voting process in America today does not mirror the voting process of Germany when Hitler rose to power. Your talking about two different political systems. Furthermore Bush won the popular vote in 2004, and many of these comparisons I've heard have the same types of holes this one does, as Ive debated many of them already. However you go ahead and compare the two if it helps you depict Bush the way you would prefer he be known, It's not fooling me, and if that makes me a Bush apologist then so be it, to me there is a line between a bad president of the U.S. and Adolph Hitler, a very distinct line.

Net, in the words of Ronald Reagan, "There you go again." Your response to my post is typical of many of your other posts - when you come across a line of thinking that you don't agree with, you blame it on Bush-hating liberal bias. I give you valid points to consider, and you dismiss them all by assuming that my motive is to demonize Bush, and by (incorrectly) holding that such a motive would invalidate those points. Why don't you just address the parallels between the two, instead of running away at the mere mention of Hitler? The reason I used Hitler as a comparison is because most of us are somewhat aware of how he made his power grab. It happened in the modern era, in a Western country, and it has been studied thoroughly. Should I have compared Bush's actions to those of some obscure Chinese ruler of 1000 years ago, or an African tribal chief, so as not to offend?

JohnfrmCleveland



No sale, and by the way Ive looked at and addressed many of these comparison and yet above you say....... ((Why don't you just address the parallels between the two, instead of running away at the mere mention of Hitler?)) Honestly there are not many solid comparisons between Bush and Hitler that I can see. Whenever I look into one seriously I get what I expect, inconsistencies and holes in the comparisons made. Lets not forget that there are far more differences between the two than comparisons that can be drawn, and half the comparisons as I said are full of holes anyway. You didn't seem to even respond when I addressed the comparison that Hitler and Bush both got elected while not getting the majority of the popular vote. I showed why that is a poor
comparison yet here you say I'm sidestepping it. The comparison that is most blown out of proportion between Bush and Hitler, that I've heard, is a left wing favorite and it was in relation to the actions of Bush regarding 9/11, being comparable to Hitler and the Reichstag fire of 1933. I dissected that one a few months back, and pointed out in detail why those two events were not comparable, and since you want to talk about Hitler/Bush comparisons as if I sidestep them I'll go ahead and dissect it again.

The argument is that Bush used the events of 9/11 to unjustly initiate a war, the same way Hitler used the Reichstag fire to have an excuse to initiate war. My key argument was to show the differences between the two events and why comparing Bush to Hitler there would be like me comparing a police officer killing some armed domestic terrorist with machine guns, to a bad cop who kills a dozen unarmed civilians because they cheated their taxes.

In other words since the two events had practically nothing in common, the decisions that two different leaders made based on these two separate events are not comparable. Did you know for example that nobody was even killed in the Reichstag fire? Did you also know that the Reichstag building bares no resemblance to either the pentagon or the WTC? The Reichstag building looks to be 4 stories, and resembles a capitol building, the Twin Towers and Pentagon on the other hand were among the worlds largest of Superstructures, the Pentagon Of course still is one of the largest because of the surface area it covers. Comparing the Reichstag building to the Penatgon or the WTC would be like comparing a shrimp boat to the Titanic. http://pentagon.afis.osd.mil/facts.html

Lets go further. Did you also know that the Reichstag building was not even destroyed in this fire and remained in use afterwards? Much unlike the WTC which were completely destroyed. Lets think what else, oh yea the Reichtag fire was obviously an attack on one building and it was aparently set by only one person who was convicted out of the five who were tried for the crime, they were on foot as well. The 9/11 attacks on the other hand were better organized, involved more people, the weapons of choice were four jumbo jets filled with innocent people, and people here are trying to spin that the motivation Bush got from the 9/11 attack, was comparable to Hitler and the 9/11 attacks? lol. About the only thing that was comparable was the mere fact that both events, in part helped lead to war, however beyond that there is no way you can say that the justification for war after 9/11, is comparable to the justification Hitler had regarding the Reichstag fire, yet people make this comparison just like many others because Hitler was notorious and evil enough to use to demonize a president they don't like. http://www.germannotes.com/hist_reichstag.shtml

Ive looked into many of these comparisons, and you know what? Most of the comparisons people manage to muster up between Bush and Hitler are full of holes, not to mentioned being outnumbered by the vast differences between Bush and Hitler, which some people seem unwilling to discuss as they do the comparisons they draw. I don't believe for a second that bush being compared to Hitler is anything but a left wing smear tactic, and its because half these comparisons are full of holes and 90% of the people doing it are either Liberal or Democrat. Coincidence? I think not.

No, Bush is not really comparable to Hitler. He likes to consider himself above the law, and he doesn't respect the Constitution or the authority of Congress, but he isn't genocidal.

(While we're at it, let's remember that Hitler wasn't the only dictator who was responsible for many deaths and loss of liberties. Josef Stalin also had many killed or shipped off to gulags. Chairman Mao Tse-Tung's cultural revolution and the Red Guard also killed and imprisoned many, many Chinese. Loss of civil liberties was rampant in all of these circumstances. And yet, Hitler seems to garner most of the publicity for the evil acts he and his regime committed.)

George W. Bush is an ideologue and an opportunist. He was hell-bent on invading Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein, and he had no problem with letting the American people think that Iraq was somehow complicit in the 9/11 attacks, which was never proven. He intoned that we might find "a smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud" if we did not pre-emptively invade Iraq. He used the opportunity to sell the PATRIOT Act to the Congress and authorized, outside of FISA, illegal wiretapping of the American people, ostensibly to protect us. Yeah, right.

Bush surrounded himself with "yes" men and women and remains either oblivious of or uncaring toward public opinion, totally convinced of the rightness of his actions. I don't know how many officials have left the administration in disgust and gone on to write books about Bush's bull-headedness, cronyism, and persistence in valuing unquestioning loyalty to him over honest opinions or competence.

The economy is in poor shape, whether you consider its current status as a recession or not. Oil prices are at an all time high. Iraq's oil supply was supposed to pay for the invasion and occupation. Instead, China and Japan are signing the notes for us to continue to wage the most expensive and most frustrating occupation in history. In the meantime, we are being told that repairing the infrastructure of our country, providing health care for all of our citizens and a better public education for our children are unrealistic and too expensive. We're being told that the occupation of Iraq is for our security, and yet we can't staff the airlines with enough air marshals, we don't inspect all of the cargo coming into our ports, and our border to the south is like a sieve as undocumented aliens come in for whatever purposes.

Other than provide more medical aid for Africa than any other U.S. president to date, just what has Bush done to recommend himself as a good or effective President for the history books? I say, practically nothing.

EDIT: And I haven't even mentioned the federal response to Katrina or Bush's environmental policies.

While I don't personally agree with everything you say here, some of it I do, and thats a much more mature and accurate opinion of Bush than I'm hearing from some people. It looked more like an honest sincere criticism rather than a vague, non specific comparison to a dictator who was nothing short of a monster, thanks for pointing out that Bush is not really comparable to Hitler, because it is indeed elaborated and in many cases inaccurate altogether.

Oh and to answer your question of ........... Just what has Bush done to recommend himself as a good or effective President for the history books? Not much thats for sure.

1. Is it possible that President Bush's Administration will be seen with a kinder eye than we see it now?

Of course it is. In fact, it's quite likely. He has nower else to go but up, right? . But, generally, I think those Presidents viewed as quite good during their term have flaws come to light later on, and those viewed quite harshly have those views moderated over time. Also, his negative perception is due almost entirely to the Iraq war, and no one knows how that might be viewed at later dates. As Iraq fades into the background, I think a greater appreciation of the issues Bush faced post 9-11 will develop, and those will mitigate perceptions of the actions taken.

2. If so how many years do you think will have to pass?

I see two phases here, both due to the Iraq War. First, there will be the issue of whatever happens in Iraq over the next year or so. Then, there is the much longer term issue of what happens in Iraq over the next decade or two. So, I don't think a final determination will be made for 20 years or so.

Comparisons between Bush and Hitler are probably NOT the way historians will look at the Bush administration. I have real doubts about those that compare the perceived loss of civil liberties in the past 7 years to Nazi death camps or tin foil hat (pardon the expression) theories that 9/11 was orchestrated by the same administration that has been accused (ad nauseum) of criminal incompetence.

1. Is it possible that President Bush's Administration will be seen with a kinder eye than we see it now?

This questions asks us to compare how the Bush administration is currently viewed to how it will be viewed in the future. The comparison demands that we examine and pinpoint how it is currently viewed as a baseline.

So how is it viewed? Do we think this is the worst administration of all time? Some do. Of course, some of these same people want the government (the selfsame government, ironically) to give the death penalty to corporate CEOs. Now, if the government starts kidnapping CEOs and offing them, then we may have some Hitler comparisons...

How have the past years compared to other eras? I think the comparison is favorable. Low inflation, real income growth, and expanding economy and more jobs.

What about the deficit? Record surplusses to record deficits and all that? Alan Greenspan had an interesting take on that. Greenspan was full of praise for the fiscal discipline exhibited during the Clinton administration. However, the surpluses were unexpected and kept growing faster than they (the CBO that is) could explain. Greenspan advocated a tax cut because the surplusses were projected to be so high that within a few years, the national debt would be gone. Since the debt is the instrument used to control our monetary policy, this would eliminate the key control the Fed had over the economy. Suddenly, in 2001 (before the Bush tax cut), the surplus was gone. Tax revenue had plummeted from a combination of the 2000/01 tech stock bubble bursting and the slowing economy. Deficits had returned "with a vengeance" I believe were Greenspan's words and the tax cut added to them. Nobody could explain why the surplus was so big (Greenspan cited productivity gains and capital gains taxes from stock options among other things) or why they were gone so quickly. In other words, it was an anomoly.

When 9/11 hit, with the huge impact on the stock market and the economy in general, Greenspan cited the resilience of the economy as the reason we didn't have a huge contraction. Of course, that hit further hurt tax revenues and, coupled with greatly increased domestic and defense spending, sent the deficits through the roof. The spending is entirely Bush's fault, the economic downturn was not.

Internationally, the Bush administration's time simply continued the erosion of our "image" that started with the fall of the USSR. Without a menacing bully to compare us to, the US's meddling now seems less desirable. The US leadership is also frowned upon as an older brother's heavy handed guidance.

Iraq, the most contraversial issue of this administration, was simply the logical conclusion to an uneasy stalemate in the Middle East. US policy had been to topple the Hussein regime since 1998, two and a half years before Bush took the Oath of Office.

While the Iraq war may not have created the immediate stability envisioned by Bush and Cheney, the previous stalemate was cited by Osama bin Laden himself in his declaration of war against the United States as a significant pillar in his greivances against the US. After 9/11 and the at times hysterical reactions of some, the need to deal with this thorn in our side, which also happened to be in the region of the world that was widely seen as our enemy, was overwhelming. The Congress certainly got swept away by it as did some Neocon members of the administration. Either way, the decade long defiance of Iraq could no longer be ignored and we acted. Notice I did not say "Bush acted" but "We" as in the United States of America. The war was legal internationally (reference Resolution 1441), legal domestically (reference the AUMF), and very popular at the time.

The other issues cited as Bush failures:
-mortgage crisis: originated in the changes in lending guidelines during the Clinton administration. Bush had little to do with this mess.
-oil prices: last I checked we don't have a command economy. Oil prices are being spiked by commodity speculators, not by the Bush administration.
-Fed changing the interest rates (is this a failure?): not only is this a common occurance, the White House has nothing whatsoever to do with it.
-job losses: again, nothing to do with the President.


2. If so how many years do you think will have to pass?

I have no idea. Since I don't share the gloomy perception of Bush that others do, my guess would be "not long".

Well, Net, why don't you just go to the bookstore and tear the offending pages out of every history book you find. Because when you refuse to even consider that there may be something to be learned from Hitler's rise to power, you are effectively throwing away the efforts of every historian who ever tried to make some sense out of what happened.

For the last time, I was NOT holding Hitler up next to Bush to say, "Look how evil both of these guys are!" Read my posts again, if you have to. I was pointing out the disturbing events of the past 8 years, and trying to put them in some kind of perspective. You seem to think that anything Bush does is just fine - he must have a good reason for it, there is no danger here, etc. It's America, after all - what could happen? We have checks and balances, right? We're good people. We are civilized.

So was Germany. So was Japan. So was Italy.

It's easy to look at the two situations and find differences. "Holes in the argument," as you call them. The trick is to recognize the similarities, and learn from them. That is why I asked you to put aside the visceral feelings that Hitler brings out in all of us and look at things objectively.

Nobody in this thread [or in any argument I've ever heard] is comparing Bush and Hitler on the grounds of architectural similarities. That would be rather silly and trivial. People make comparisons based on the similarities of consolidation of domestic power in the executive, imperialist and expansionist foreign policies and the repression of individual liberties of each nation.

If you take an objective look at each, you'd probably be surprised and frightened at how many similarities there actually are.

If your not making comparisons because Hitler was evil and it helps you to exploit him then answer these questions......

1. Ive heard this kind of stuff again and again yet 9 times out of 10 those making such comparisons have separate political beliefs than Bush or exist in another party altogether, why is that? Now I don't want to hear that its because all conservative republicans defend this guy no matter what because I and others have no shortage of criticisms on Bush, but I keep mine honest, relevant, and fair as possible.

2. Why is it that out of literally thousands of leaders across the world, that Bush surely has at least something in common with, that these comparisons are being made with Adolph Hitler, who is quite easily the worst dictator this planet has seen, comparable to others like Joseph Stalin, and Napoleon Bonaparte in terms of the amount of pain and suffering he inflicted?

3. Why do half these comparisons have the types of inconsistencies I'm pointing out? I'll answer that one for you, its because people were looking for things to compare Bush to Hitler with, and therefore the specifics in some cases are flat out disregarded. In retrospect I think its safer to say that George Bush has more in common with Jimmy Carter than he does with Hitler, but do I see the same people making a comparison to how Jimmy Carter handled the Iran hostage crisis, to how Bush is handling this war? No because its not their motive to find a relevant comparison, and Jimmy Carter was not evil enough to use that way, plus he shares the politics of many making the comparison between Bush and Hitler anyway. Its signs like this, one after another that has me convinced that this is nothing but clever smear tactics, and I'm not buying into it. I'll criticize Bush because that much he deserves, but everyone deserves fair and accurate criticisms, I would no sooner Compare Hillary Clinton to the likes of someone she has little in common with, than I would Bush to Hitler.

If I had the same political beliefs as Bush, I probably would not be criticizing him. Good catch, there.

Here is an interesting documentary from those Commies at PBS: Frontline: Bush's War

Now if you will excuse me, I'm off to beat my head against a different brick wall.

I watched some of that last night and wanted to throw up. I want to hear what the Bush supporters have to say about that show.

If you liked "Bush's War," you will love "The Dark Side." It goes into far greater detail on how they manipulated the intelligence they used to justify going to war.

I'm not too fond of GW, but id assume since I don't compare him to the Taliban, or Adolph Hitler, that many people would categorize me as a Bush enthusiast or whatever. Anyway I'm in the process of watching (Bushes War), and I'll let you know what I think when I'm done, probably tomorrow. John presented the same video here..... http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...mp;#entry241832 post 207, so I'll reply to it there.