http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/13/AR2007071301709. html

Why Bush Will Be A Winner
By William Kristol
Sunday, July 15, 2007; B01

First, no second terrorist attack on U.S. soil -- not something we could have taken for granted.
Apart from Iraq, there has been less of it, here and abroad, than many experts predicted on Sept. 12, 2001. So Bush and Vice President Cheney probably are doing some important things right.
The war in Afghanistan has gone reasonably well.

Second, a strong economy – The economy first: After the bursting of the dot-com bubble, followed by the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, we've had more than five years of steady growth, low unemployment and a stock market recovery. Did this just happen? No. Bush pushed through the tax cuts of 2001 and especially 2003 by arguing that they would produce growth. His opponents predicted dire consequences. But the president was overwhelmingly right. Even the budget deficit, the most universally criticized consequence of the tax cuts, is coming down and is lower than it was when the 2003 supply-side tax cuts were passed.

And third, and most important, a war in Iraq that has been very difficult, but where-- we now seem to be on course to a successful outcome.”

…. military progress on the ground in Iraq in the past few months has been greater than even surge proponents like me expected, and political progress is beginning to follow.

Also the confirmation of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.

You are absolutely off your rocker if you think the George W. Bush presidency will be viewed as a success. You are part of a small minority wallowing in denial; dirtier than a pig rolling around in it's own feces.

In fact, George W. Bush will go down as the worst president the US has ever seen, and our country will be left in worse overall condition as a result of his lack of leadership, horrendous decisions, and incompetence at a level thought unreachable by some, yet predicted by others.

When will it be a success? You say it " will be." When? Is it already a success? ALl those reasons for it being called a success are in place now. Would you consider it a success already?

"When will it be a success?"

Depends on Iraq.

President Truman left office with an approval rating of less than 20 percent. He is now considered one of our best presidents.

OK. Well the article takes the time to say "So to be a successful president, Bush has to win in Iraq."

Do you interpret that to mean that he has to win during his Presidency? Or that any outcome after he leaves office will be his too?

You know how much of that article reads to me? It reads like the author is laying foundation to shift blame if it is lost after his Presidency - but is eager to take credit if another President does something else that ends it.

Iraq says we can leave anytime. I would like to take them up on that offer and do it now. Would that be victory enough? The stated mission includes, in VERY large part, Iraqis taking control. They are asking for it to happen. Why should we not do it now? Bush could declare victory.

And what about my other questions? If all those things listed as good-done-by-Bush-and-Bush-alone " They didn't just happen." are in place, then why can't we call him a success today?

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that I agree with all of that article, are all of those things done by Bush enough to make him a success? Lack of terrorsit hits on the US ( which is wrong - but ok. You're right. No more World Trade Centers have been hit. ) and the economy holding steady and growing by taxes being worked on.

Is that enough? Is that all it takes? Two things? What about other things that are NOT good? Do those weigh at all? Or is it just " We have two things - we're claiming success and strutting our stuff."

Ann finally, and this is a really important question to me. If you answer no other question honestly, please answer this one -

What if we get hit by another terrorist attack on US soil? Will that change your opinion of him being a success? Or will you just still cling to " It's the economy, stupid." and that will be all it takes?

On what level would it have to happen in order to get called a terrorist attack? Bio-terrorism? More planes? Bomb? What?

Bush a success? He has added $3 Trillion to the national debt. Anybody who says he is a success, is an idiot.

DD, do you think Lyndon Johnson's presidency will someday be considered a success too? He was largely considered a failure when he left office in 1969 and still is today. But maybe someday, we'll view the Vietnam War as a pretty smart thing too, huh? Just like Iraq.

Andrew

Great point Andrew. Since this administration did not leave the National Parks or cuddly plush bears in their wake, folks are not likely to forget their sham war. Teddy Roosevelt knew how to win the legacy game, so he has gained a comfortable distance from the unnecessary blood he spilled.

Oh, and know your sources folks, William Kristol is the current de facto leader of the Neo-Conservative movement.

I'm surprised Herb isn't here rattling on about how Bush "is a really good man".

That's because he just isn't.

Good heads up Littlesongs. He's bought and sold many times over.

History judges Presidents differently as time passes. The jury is WAY still out on this one. (And I am not defending Bush in anyway here, just offering some perspective.)

SOME Presidents are judged differently as time passes.

That time span gets shorter and shorter with each administration and is more and more accurate on the fly. Like now.

In this case ... polish that turd all you want, it's still a turd. There isn't a silver lining on the Bush Jr. years that'll clear his legacy. Perhaps he can become a great ambassador to all humanity a la Jimmy Carter and have some relevance and make a difference POST-Presidency, but I doubt it here.

Bush will be a bored man when he's done. Good thing he'll have brush to clear on the ranch and some property to mountain bike on.

DD's has been huffin' that gold paint again.

Truman got America in the Korean War. 54,000 Americans soldiers died. He left office with an approval rating of less than 20 percent. Now he's considered one of our greatest presidents.

We can't say for sure how history will judge George W. Bush's presidency.

That depend's if you just go with the heavily down-played US History or World History. If you want real reporting of World and Historical event's you have to read source's outside of the traditional US one's.

low "approval rating" and "acomplishments during a presidency" are 2 different things.

Nixon and truman are examples. low approval ratings yet accomplished quite a bit during their presidencies.

Bush's accomplishments can only be observed by atom splitter, while his boneheaded decisions can be observed from the surface of Uranus (the planet).

Nothing short of making Jesus appear on a platter in the oval office is gonna save Bush.

DD, you need to go back and read some history if you think Truman is well remembered today because of the Korean War. On the contrary, Truman is well remembered DESPITE his huge blunder of the Korean War, which made him unpopular in his time and which we are still dealing with 50+ years later. It's not like historians today look back on Korea and say, "Hey, not so bad." It almost led to a war with China even then.

But Korea was just one (big) black mark in Truman's eventful presidency, and his accomplishments vs. Korea were great and historic. This is the man who decided to use the first nuclear weapons in war, who defined America's Cold War containment policy for every future president from Eisenhower to Reagan, who rebuilt Europe after World War II with the Marshall Plan, who oversaw the peaceful revival of Japan and Germany, our former enemies, who created NATO, who in effect allowed for the creation of Israel, who integrated the American armed forces. THAT'S the stuff, DD, that historians look at when they admire Truman, not the Korean War.

What will historians see looking back on George W. Bush? Iraq, 9/11, and Afghanistan mostly but also turning a huge budget surplus into a huge budget deficit (with big tax cuts for the wealthy). They'll see his erosion of American constitutional freedoms, his "Axis of Evil" speech that alienated North Korea and Iran for 5 years, his poisoning of international relations even with our allies. And if Osama isn't caught by 2009, that will be on his record too. Can you imagine if Harry Truman had let Adolf Hitler get away???

What big Truman-like accomplishments will Bush be seen to have to offset the catastrophe in Iraq, DD? Johnson had a few more accomplishments than Bush has had. Johnson signed some great legislation such as for civil rights and for Medicare. Yet it is dwarfed by Vietnam, still.

As we learn that al Qaeda has rebuilt itself in safe havens in Afghanistan, you can't even say Bush has been successful against terrorists; now we learn that we aren't really fighting them over there after all, because al Qaeda is coming back to get us. So much for the so-called "War on Terror." I can only hope that things don't get worse for America before Jan 20 2009 and that the worst blunders of the Bush years are already behind us.

Andrew

Johnson had seveal major accomplishments. His civil rights accomplishments alone were enough to hang laurels on.

"Truman got America in the Korean War. 54,000 Americans soldiers died. He left office with an approval rating of less than 20 percent. Now he's considered one of our greatest presidents.

We can't say for sure how history will judge George W. Bush's presidency."

Truman's "getting" us into the Korean war was a UN action that we were PART of, y'know part of a UN-sanctioned international police action forcing North Korea back. Truman also had the wherewithal to NOT force the issue with Red China, and he fired MacArthur when he tried to force that issue. I believe that hindsight will show that the Korean conflict was MUCH better handled than the current situation is/will be. His accomplishments outside of Korea are also numerous, as Andrew lays out above.

Simply put, the Bush years will be a "net loss" for America. We would have been better off with any other candidate, GOP or Dem.

Right you are, Dennis Kucinich would have been awesome!

DD's said>>>>
We can't say for sure how history will judge George W. Bush's presidency.

Not till he's been dead for 50 years.... Or MORE.....