[quote name='munch']The picture of George W. Bush will not be painted for about 30 years. I'm sure many of you will disagree with me, but when it is I will not be surprised if liberals are more receptive to his foreign policy. They will admit he made some mistakes, but he might go down as Woodrow Wilson-esque president.[/QUOTE]
In 30 years, I sure as hell hope that Iraq is nothing like it is at the moment - heck, I wish it stopped being that way as soon as possible.
Nevertheless, the world poured its heart out to us after 9/11, the nation was politically unified (in the sense that we agreed on the need to fight terror, so more prescient political issues that we've been divided on for decades weren't at the forefront), and things seemingly couldn't go wrong.
Today, you have 66%+ of the American people disagreeing with the military escalation in Iraq Bush brought up last week, increasing suspicion in the government based on secrecy, the death of habeas corpus, corporatism, fearmongering, and a majority of people wanting the military to get out of Iraq. We've spent the past 4 years thinking that American political process is a dichotomy where flag burning, gay marriage, abortion, and the war(s) are issues that are black and white, with no particular detail to opinion or concern for nuances. One is or is not on "your side," and that's all that matters politically.
We have gone on a route of unilateral military maneuvers against a country unrelated to 9/11, based on selective information from unreliable sources (Curveball, Achmed Chalabi), spent half a trillion dollars despite the promise that the US cost would not exceed $1.7b, replaced the single most worthless secretary of defense in recent memory, dealt with the entire upheaval of our federal representative government, found out that the United States has engaged in rendition of its captives and thus supported state-sponsored torture, ignored FISA laws, sent our children to die, killed tens of thousands (if not more) of innocent Iraqis, turned widespread international goodwill into widespread international resentment, promoted supply-side economic policies (tax cuts with no reduction in spending) that showed themselves to be unsustainable during the Reagan administration, and created a culture in which any and all Muslims are completely suspect and considered potential terrorists.
I'd not, then, say he's a lazy man. I'd also not say that I think he's intentionally malicious. I would say that he's a charming persona with a "hyuk hyuk" kind of dumbass likability, who has a lot of people hellbent on assuring the wealthy American elites the continuance of their obscene share of the pie in his administration. He has a lot of people who have nothing but disdain for the United Nations (which is fine by itself), but take that to the logical extent that international diplomacy and approval is a sign of weakness (rather than, say, bridge building for future alliances and support). Most of all, he is the representative of a political party who strongly believes that government intervention into the lives of the American people is, without fail, fraught with problems and fundamentally contrary to the freedoms we all possess and act upon. In that regard, he's been a resounding success in proving them correct.
Pfff, whatever queer.[/quote]