Of course there were some complete whackdoos, particularly back in the 19th century. But I think history is going to become increasingly unkind to W, particularly as the 8 year bookends of Clinton and Obama highlight just how out of touch and irresponsible his administration really was. As modern presidents go (I'm talking, say... FDR forward), he's quite possibly the worst. You can argue Carter, who wasn't a particularly effective leader. But Carter didn't do anywhere near the damage that Bush managed, on numerous fronts. In the end, malice trumps incompetence. Carter was incompetent, but Bush (or more accurately his "advisers") was both incompetent and malicious.
Well he may get credit for the Arab Spring, so that may help his historical score a little. Afghanistan will be a mess, but is not like Gore would have not invaded Afghanistan after 9/11. His Iraq score will be more iffy, He will get bad marks for getting us there but may get some “ends justify the means” points if they turn into a “working” democratic country, then again they could easily fall apart Syria style? Bush also gets high scores for his work fighting AIDS in Africa, yes his “you must teach abstinence education” policy is controversial, but under him many Millions of lives were saved with AIDS prevention programs. The collapse of the housing bubble and the economy can not be fully put on him, Democrats and Republican policies set the seeds for that way before he even became president. I am not a fan of Bush, but I think partisan criticism of him is sometimes unfair, and I say this as an atheist that detested his very religious positions on most everything.
OTOH I think it entirely possible that 9/11 would not have happened under a Gore administration-- its my impression anyway that Gore had quite a different understanding of and attitude to terrorism than Bush. And really, you know-- he had eight years (well actually seven i guess) to address the bubble, and there was plenty of warning, first from experts, then from the merely educated. Its probably fair to say that the great size of the problem surprised most, but not its existence, and not that it had national importance.
I know this is a Greens thread, but that doesn't mean the discussion has to abandon all semblance of reality.
I don't. We tend to gauzily remember past presidents. The love Truman and Eisenhower are getting these days is far greater than they got in their lifetimes. I know that I'm that way about George Bush I. Let's face it, being POTUS is a really, really, really tough job.
Yeah.... But that would pre-suppose that Al-Qaeda and bin Laden were targeting a president in time as opposed to America. You got any evidence of that? Because it would be news to me.
I think taos is talking about the intelligence that was ignored/dismissed by Bush in the summer of 2001. It's possible Gore would have done the same thing. It's possible the disconnect between the CIA and the FBI would have still got in the way of any action regardless of what Gore would have done. But we do know Bush didn't act on the intel and 9/11 happened.
I have a lot more respect for Bush I now, but I think that's a result of the bar being lowered quite a bit since then.
Exactly Its been awhile since I read Clarke's book, but it seems to me I recall some bits along those lines... I certainly wasn't referring to a kinder gentler Al Quaida if Gore had been elected.