Bush Should Be Judged On Keeping Nation Secure

By Nelson Solomon, Co-Editor
President George W. Bush stood behind the podium in the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room in the White House for the last time on Monday, acknowledging the “mistakes” and “disappointments” of his two turbulent terms in office.
The legacies of presidents tend to be based on the major decisions and accomplishments of their administrations, and in Bush’s case, the Iraq war will be the starting point in future discussions of Bush’s legacy.
Was Bush right in pushing the United States into the current conflict in Iraq and attempting to establish a democracy? In his own words, time will tell.
“When the history of Iraq is written, historians will analyze, for example, the decision on the surge,” he said. “The situation looked like it was going fine and violence for a time began to throw the progress of Iraq into doubt.
“Rather than accepting the status quo or saying ‘it’s not worth it’ or ‘politics makes it difficult’ or ‘the party may end up not doing well in the elections’ because of the violence in Iraq, I decided to do something about it and send 30,000 troops in as opposed to withdrawing. That part of history is certain, and the situation did change.
“The question is, in the long run, will this democracy survive? And that’s going to be the challenge for future presidents,” he said.
As Ian Sims from The Crimson White at the University of Alabama wrote, if the situation in Iraq improves, and 50 to 100 years from now Iraq remains (or becomes) a true democracy, then historians may remember Bush as the one who started that change.
We don’t know what the situation will look like in Iraq, or in Afghanistan in the far future; but regardless, no historian can say Bush simply operated on opinion polls.
Many will argue that entering into Iraq was unnecessary and I will join that chorus, but when it comes to the character of George W. Bush, he clearly stood on his principles and did not sway his stance based on public opinion.
The mistakes of Bush in his two terms are aplenty, notably Abu Ghraib and Hurricane Katrina, but let’s not forget some other minor but relevant facts:
He increased funding for the National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health in his first years of office, and created education programs to strengthen the grounding in science and mathematics for American high school students.
Undeniably, history will primarily tell that President Bush was successful at defending the homeland.
Critics cannot ignore that fact when his legacy is brought up.
As Education Secretary Margaret Spellings succinctly put it, “You never get credit for things that didn't happen. Nobody says, 'Thank goodness no planes have crashed into any buildings lately.’”

I think the title speaks for itself. The co-editor backs up his opinion towards the end:
Undeniably, history will primarily tell that President Bush was successful at defending the homeland.
Critics cannot ignore that fact when his legacy is brought up.
As Education Secretary Margaret Spellings succinctly put it, “You never get credit for things that didn't happen. Nobody says, 'Thank goodness no planes have crashed into any buildings lately.’”

Seriously? Because... planes were crashing into buildings left and right before he was in office, right? Unless I'm mistaken, the biggest terrorist attack on our soil occurred while Bush was in office in the first place - just because it didn't happen twice during his term makes him a genius and pro at keeping our nation secure? That he should be praised, judged, and remembered?
Oi... the stupidity of people...

http://thevistaonline.com/bush_should_be_judged_on_keeping_nation_secure
UCO's student newspaper "The Vista" online

(I saw this article in our school's newspaper and... )

We were attacked during GW's watch, however, it was planned during Clinton's term without question.

Though that means little, when both of those men, and the first Bush in office all have political and financial ties with the same groups that took part in 9-11. Bush didn't keep us safe; he sent our children to fight yet another pointless war, so the men who run the Banks, Federal Reserve, Oil Companies, and Weapon Manufacturing Industries could make billions of dollars. He waged a war, that destroys, and his father now runs a company which fixes war-torn nations, which is linked to the Bin Laden family and Iranian royalty.

How absolutely convenient is that?

And the whole "no child left behind" act did little good. We are continuing to fall behind on math and science--we got third world countries beating us in test scores.

No Child Left Behind is a f**king joke, created to keep the American public stupid and easily distracted by flashing lights.

Most people are average; students usually earning C's, a few B's and a D here in there in the subjects that trouble them until they get the help they need. Then the other 15% of students are either A students, or D/F students, and The A's don't need help. But instead of allowing the average kids to get over the fence, they force the bulk of students to have to slow down for the "dumb" ones. So all the kids who could go from B/C grades to A/B's, are hobbled by the those who either have learning disabilities or are just not interested in learning. Allowing the overall average to lowered by the minority of students, and the small A group pulling ahead of the pack more and more; creating a huge gap in prowess and opportunities in life later on.

I guess GWB didn't want his country to be full of children that were smarter than him.

^^ Great points. It's frightening to realize the decline in quality of American public school education during our recent 8-year nightmare. We're looking at, potentially if not in fact, a generation that will be less intelligent than the one before it.