that for James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, and even Warren Harding, there was some consciousness of being judged by history. For the Decider, there are only his preconceived notions. If history thinks he failed, then history must be wrong.

Excellent point.

It seems that because folks are not happy w/Bush, that nothing he says/does is right. IMHO, his use of the term "Decider," is something we don't often see from politicians on either side...Acceptance of responsibility/accountability for their actions/decisions. Please note, I am not taking any side here as to the efficacy of his decisions and/or policies. Just opining that his use of the term is not necessarily negative.

Regards,

Mike

mike-ford:

It seems that because folks are not happy w/Bush, that nothing he says/does is right. IMHO, his use of the term "Decider," is something we don't often see from politicians on either side...Acceptance of responsibility/accountability for their actions/decisions. Please note, I am not taking any side here as to the efficacy of his decisions and/or policies. Just opining that his use of the term is not necessarily negative.

Regards,

Mike

Ok, you are not taking sides. But judging by Bush's violation of nearly ever institutional, theoretical, ethical, and moral criteria of accountability of the presidency, I suggest Bush's use of the term Decider was NOT to emphasize his responsibility and accountability- that is merely a collateral coincidence- rather his was to emphasize his ultimate authority and power to 'decide' inspite of everyone else.

IMHO it may be some time before we truly know the effects of where we've been in the past 10 years...There's a LOT of "truth" that has yet to come out. Often, leaders who are reviled while in office, become heros over time...and vice-versa...I may get kicked in the head for this, but I still think it's too early to tell.

Regards,

Mike

I agree with you. Time will tell how all of this will come out. As for Truman, he too was locked into situations that had progressed before him. One can not judge from the outside. As far as polls goes, what do they really tell us. Not much other than catching a person a on bad or good day.

Ask the real question, what would any of us do in the Presidents position? How does one defend out country against those who seek to harm us and who have done so? I myself believe in the GWB, and respect the fact that he has had the wearwithall to withstand the criticism of the people. That takes a strong person to do that day in and day out.

God Bless you GWB.

The future, by definition, is not known in the present. And leaders who endure intense unpopularity are sometimes vindicated, at least in part, by history.

But comparisons between Truman and Bush are not apposite. It would take a book to explain why, but the gist of it is that in 1945-52, the United States was at a peak of power, while by the time Bush was elected [sic] in 2000, the deep decline of American power (in every sense) was very apparent. So was the rapidly growing need for leadership that would start to address some of the causes of that decline. This Bush has utterly failed to do. The tragedy of the Bush presidency is not Iraq. It is the precious time we wasted. Our children and our grandchildren will pay a high price for our foolish choice of leadership.

tedgmon:

I agree with you. Time will tell how all of this will come out. As for Truman, he too was locked into situations that had progressed before him. One can not judge from the outside. As far as polls goes, what do they really tell us. Not much other than catching a person a on bad or good day.

Ask the real question, what would any of us do in the Presidents position? How does one defend out country against those who seek to harm us and who have done so? I myself believe in the GWB, and respect the fact that he has had the wearwithall to withstand the criticism of the people. That takes a strong person to do that day in and day out.

God Bless you GWB.

It is my religion's belief that if a people disapprove of and openly dissent against a ruler's tyranny, killings, corruption, and oppression, then on the Day of Judgement, God will absolve them from responsibility, accountability, and association with that ruler and his actions. But if a people participate in, support, and agree with said ruler's actions, then they will be associated with him and may share in accountability for his actions.

If folks here choose to 'side with' Bush, so be it. There will be consequences on the Day of Judgement, but so be it.

As for Bush's legacy, scrupulous and meticulous students and experts of political science ( including world affairs), governance, economics have amassed 10s of 1000s of pages of reports documenting and analyzing the Bush era already. Certainties can be derived from these report and analyses.

Let's just address one aspect of his legacy: economics.

Bush adopted compassionate conservatism as his motto. However, it amounted to economic liberalist model championed by Milton Friedman. His administration's economic policies coencided with a GOP Congress adopting modified economic liberalist model which also utilized government power of spending.

In short, economic liberalism as advanced by the GOP has meant: privatization, deregulation, globalization.

Economic liberalism as practiced by Bush meant government oversight and regulation would be severely curtained to be merely a cursory shell, whereas the bulk of oversight responsibility will be carried out by private industry in whichever limited or cursory capacity it so choosed. Thus, everything from the EPA, SEC, FCC, Comptrollers, Freddie Mac, IRS, FHA etc were all underfunded, understaffed, with top level orders to reduce, limit, or all but cease regulatory and oversight duties except in restricted capacities.

Need I go into the list of problems which have emerged from the 'perfect storm' of economic liberal theories and Bush's practice? Worsening environmental conditions, mortgage crisis, reduced refining capacity leading to oligopolic control of gas prices, billions in uncollected taxes due to weakend IRS capabilities, $2 trillion annually in Medicare waste and fraud, antitrust violations gone uninvestigated in communications industry, and more.

Consequently, this same philosophy of governance has been implemented in the DOD, Dept of Homeland Security, Dept of State, FEMA, Dept of Housing and Urban Development. The consequences contributing greatly to: Abu Ghraib and 10s if not 100s of billions in fraud, waste, corruption in funds allocated to Iraq; private outsourcing of Homeland security functions has gone unregulated, unsupervised, without serious oversight to create massive security concerns and possible illegal activities regarding national security according to experts reporting to Congress; Dept of State lack of oversight but private outsourcing empowered military contractors such as Blackwater to function with impunity and above the law for years in Iraq, adversely affecting America's image abroad.

This does not even begin to address the foreign policy theories identified today as Neo Conservatism which advances American interests through global, imperial militarism.

So in the face of these substantiated allegations and largely conclusive condemnations, favoring to 'sit the fence' is essentially rejecting universal ethical standards of governance in favor of FAITH in political dogma. Or its deliberately choosing ignorance in order to stabilize FAITH therein the same political dogma.