12-18-2008, 11:57 AM
Liquid Wrote:Moose, I am not sure I agree with you completely, but I do think that time will soften the view of Bush's presidency. On top of the war and current financial crises, he will also be remembered for leading our country after the 9⁄11 attacks and the highest approval ratings in history, at a time our country did need a strong leader and he provided that at that time.
While I was not a Clinton supporter, i would not say we can blame this all on him. Yes some of the current situation's problems originated during his time as President, there are many other factors that snowballed the situation we are in now. The expense of the war being one also.
I think ultimately you are correct that history will look at Bush differently, maybe not "favorably", but probably neutrally.
Clinton was crippled by public opinion. A lot of terrorism continued to grow and flourish because he was terrified of low public support. Rwanda is a perfect example of that. He let 1 million die, had Albright stall the UN Security Council by saying "there is no Genocide in Rwanda", and stalled any UStroops from going there. And there were other places he did not pull the trigger. True American Patriots will remember that Bush did what he had to do after 9-11-01 and did not get caught up in worrying about what Americans would have a stomach for. Since Vietnam, America has had an aversion to war. They are fine with bombing governments into submission, but refuse to support putting troops on the ground to depose those same despots. Candidly; I am not even sure it's a "since Vietnam" cowardice. I have read quite a bit indicating that USA really would not have put troops on the ground against Hitler to save the Jewish genocide; but only did so because our economy was being injured by Hitler sinking merchant ships heading to UK with American products.