The End of the Bush Presidency

Bush never had the gift of persuasion, the ability to give a State of the Union address or a press conference that left his enemies disarmed, but there was a time when he at least seemed like a leader - like someone consequential, active, and important, whatever one thought of his actions and their consequences. Full Story »

Posted by Derek Hawkins
Tags Help
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by Derek Hawkins - Jan 17, 2009 - 1:56 AM PST
Edit Lock: This story can be edited
Edited by: Derek Hawkins - Jan 17, 2009 - 1:56 AM PST

Reviews

Show All | Notes | Comments | Quotes | Links
Jack Dinkmeyer
2.1
by Jack Dinkmeyer - Jan. 17, 2009

Not much here. The article covers points which have been covered lots of times before--and much better. Basically, the author wanted to say something profound about the whimpering end to Bush, but couldn't find much that is profound. Failure is like that.

Anyone paying attention even before the 2000 election when Bushies stabbed McCain in the back could figure out that the a Bushie administration was bad for America; we didn't real just how bad. 9/11 was a gift from Hell for Bushies and ensured their continued governance. A tragic event in many ways.

See Full Review » (12 answers)
James Staley
2.4
by James Staley - Jan. 17, 2009

This op-ed concerning the Bush Administration only makes a couple of points, both rather unoriginal and obvious. The essay is well written and, though short, has a narrow, manageable scope.

Bush has always been more Manichaean than Christian in his simplistic, dualistic way of viewing the world -- light vs. dark, good vs. evil, et cetera. Being a superficial man with no appreciation for the complexity of reality and thus no sense of gradation in his ethical thinking, this good-bad thinking blinded him to his own atrocities, since he always had to see himself as one of the "good guys."

See Full Review » (12 answers)
James Canning
1.9
by James Canning - Jan. 17, 2009

Weak commentary on G W Bush's flaccid performance in his waning days in the White House. The author claims Iran was an "uncrackable problem" and that Bush was "gutsy" in backing the "surge" in Iraq.

Iran has sought normal relations with the US for many years, so it really is astonishing for this writer to argue Bush could not have done anything to improve relations with Iran. The "surge" was anything but courageous, and I think it was a colossal strategic blunder undertaken because Bush did not want to admit the war was a mistake. Bush should have engaged with Iran and Syria, got all US troops out of Iraq, and told Israel to end the occupation of the West Bank and turn ... More »

See Full Review » (7 answers)
Derek Hawkins
3.5
by Derek Hawkins - Jan. 17, 2009
See Full Review » (2 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

2.2

Poor
from 4 reviews (40% confidence)
Quality
2.0
Information
2.0
Insight
2.0
Style
2.7
Context
1.7
Enterprise
1.5
Expertise
1.5
Originality
2.0
Relevance
2.5
Popularity
2.9
Recommendation
2.8
Credibility
3.2
# Reviews
2.0
# 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!