Second-term climbdowns might salvage scraps for Bush legacy

During a farewell news conference on Monday, US President George W. Bush once again expressed the belief that his eight-year presidency - particularly his foreign-policy record - will be vindicated by history, the portents are not particularly good.

Already last spring, nearly two thirds of 109 professional historians polled by the "History News Network" rated Bush the worst president in the nation's history, while another 35 percent said he was ... Full Story »

Posted by Marsha Iverson
Tags Help
Subjects: Politics, Extra
Topics: Bush Legacy
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by Marsha Iverson - Jan 13, 2009 - 7:00 PM PST
Edit Lock: This story can be edited
Edited by: Marsha Iverson - Jan 13, 2009 - 7:00 PM PST

Reviews

Show All | Notes | Comments | Quotes | Links
Dwight Rousu
3.4
by Dwight Rousu - Jan. 19, 2009

The review is overly charitable and apparently intentionally non-committal. Some of the international insights provide some added value.

See Full Review » (12 answers)
James Staley
3.2
by James Staley - Jan. 19, 2009

This is quality journalism, mainly focused on Bush's foreign policy decisions and what they might mean for the "shreds" of his presidential legacy. A nice balance of critics and defenders' views. Not especially well written, but you can't have everything, I guess.

Bush will not ever rebound in historical esteem as Truman did, for Bush's history of skirting or trampling on our Constitution, Katrina negligence and ineptitude, disastrous environmental policies, ruinous economic policies, widespread cronyism and corrupt sweetheart deals, and his dangerously ignorant battle with science -- all these domestic legacies (and more) will make certain his bottom-dweller status among ranked US presidents is cemented.

See Full Review » (12 answers)
Joe Dunn
3.1
by Joe Dunn - Jan. 15, 2009

Not sure what to think. Seems like a relatively shallow rehash of Bush foreign policy, about which it is hard, of course, to be objective. But not impossible, and this article didn't seem to really attempt to be objective I dont think.

See Full Review » (6 answers)
Gregory Kruse
4.4
by Gregory Kruse - Jan. 19, 2009

One thing I like about this article is it suggests a different perspective than I'm used to. In its favor, it's not a diatribe against all things Western, in fact it tries to defend GWB. All the failings listed we are so familiar with, but when have you read about giving him credit for backing off? That's like reducing the sentence of a 3-time bank robber because he decided not to go ahead with the robbery of a fourth bank. Being unfamiliar with the Daily Star, the Inter Press Service, or Jim Lobe, I hesitate to give it a high rating, but I do it in part in support of more submissions from the offshore press.

Americans have been encouraged by their very education to be Americo-centric in their thinking about the world. Putting one's self in the place of another is the only way to understand the astounding complexity of world politics. I am expecting a surge in interest about the non-Israeli Middle East brought on by the events in Gaza.

See Full Review » (7 answers)
George Blahusiak
2.2
by George Blahusiak - Jan. 19, 2009

Second term might save Bush legacy? How? What did Bush do, except dig himself in deeper. Even treaties that are blatant violations of NPT are called favourable. Support for Israel is called damaging when most commentators call Israel's actions war crimes and cimes against humanity? Not very objective.

See Full Review » (6 answers)
James Canning
4.9
by James Canning - Jan. 14, 2009

Excellent analysis of Bush's legacy and his placement among the worst US presidents in the history of the Republic. Prince Turki al-Faisal condems the US complicity in the murderous Israeli assault on Gaza.

Bush was and is an arrogant ignoramus whose idiotic Middle East policies wreaked havoc on the region and on the US itself, financially. Trillions of dollars have been squandered, hundreds of thousands of people have died violent deaths needlessly, due to the laziness and utter stupidity of G W Bush, who was a stooge of the neocons and the Israeli militarists from day one.

See Full Review » (7 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

3.5

Good
from 7 reviews (50% confidence)
Quality
3.6
Facts
3.8
Fairness
3.8
Information
3.5
Sourcing
2.5
Style
2.5
Context
3.5
Depth
2.5
Enterprise
3.0
Popularity
3.2
Recommendation
3.3
Credibility
3.1
# Reviews
3.5
# Views
5.0
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »
(See these related stories.)

Links Help

No links yet. Please review this story to add some!