Letter to the editor:

History unlikely to be kind to Bush

James J. Donaldson, Henderson

Sunday, Dec. 28, 2008 | 2:02 a.m.

It seems the major news these days from the White House is George W. Bush’s sprint to the finish of his presidency. It appears at times to be a sprint to salvage his legacy.

It is true that given enough time, history will judge our presidents, elevating some while amplifying the failings of others.

Certainly history has treated Harry Truman and Franklin Roosevelt kindly.

Truman’s frankness and honesty are legendary. He was often called “Give ’em hell Harry,” and his reply was: I just told people the truth and they thought it was hell.

Roosevelt became president when our country was mired in Depression and despair.

Although FDR launched many programs to help impoverished citizens, they were not always successful. But his absolute dedication to his hurting nation is a historical fact.

Now comes Bush and his efforts to reshape history. Some of the decisions by the self-described “Decider” will color his presidency for years to come. The untruths perpetrated upon the American people that took us to war and the reckless fiscal policies that doubled our federal debt during his reign are heavy, heavy burdens to be borne by future generations. And to use a football metaphor, it’s like leaving Barack Obama and his people with a fourth down and long near their own end zone.

My conclusion is that if Bush should be granted an opportunity to look back and see how history has judged his presidency, that lofty status he wishes for will have disappeared like a pipe dream, as have the hopes and dreams of many of our fellow citizens during his time in office.

Discussion: 8 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy.

By jfnance32

Dec. 28, 2008

7:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

I agree that history probably will not be kind to Bush. But only time will tell.

The big question is how much of an effect will this economic mess have on a long term basis to the USA.

Bush did not step up to the plate. He failed us. He should have seen this coming and fixed the mess before it exploded.

History will also take a look at the Clinton years to see what seeds of destruction were sown that came into effect during the financial meltdown. Clinton sign into law the financial deregulation bill that played a role. Clinton is the one that started the big push on banks and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac to reduce lending standards so that minorities into homes. It was the FRB during the 2001-2003 period that had a majority of Clinton appointee's that lowered interest rates to the basement.

Bush failed to reverse those damaging seeds of destruction. In fact, he too imbraced the push to lower lending standards for minorities. He did tried to get passed new regulation bills but failed to tried hard enough.

As for Iraq, I think only time will tell too. If Iraq becomes a moderating influence on the Middle East that helps nourish peace between Israel and its neighbors then that will be a fanastic achievement for Bush. I doubt that will be case and he will remember for spending resources in blood and money for very little gain.
By Future2012

Dec. 28, 2008

8:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

History unlikely to be kind to Bush, Clinton, Harry Reid, Chris Dodd, Nancy Pelosi, and Barney Franks.

It is with distress and dismay that an estimated 10% of homeowners have been subsumed by the failure of the property appraisers, mortgage brokers, banking, insurance and securitization system and lack of direct or indirect government intervention (including mortgage regulators and Fannie and Freddie) to help us out.

The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 was enacted by a Democratic Congress and signed by Democrat Jimmy Carter, but it was in 1995 that the real regulatory pressure by ACORN began to build on America's banks to meet "regulatory quotas" for loan-making to unqualified buyers in low-income communities.

The SEC forced SunTrust Banks, in 1998, to restate financials with regard to holding more the one year's worth of reserve, effectively causing them to reduce reserves to a limit of one year. The central bankers in Basel in 1988, agreed to worldwide reserves standards, and updated them in Basel in 1999, with no positive result.

From the late 90s, multiple audits showed a need to fix Fannie and Freddie. In 2000, Rep. Richard Baker proposed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac reform and it failed. The Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, failed to pass.

The Federal Reserve head Alan Greenspan feed the housing market with cheap interest rates far too long after 9/11.

The housing crises started in late 2006 and the recession started in December 2007. Yet the Federal Reserve monetary policy was still tight worrying about inflation and not jobs and homes. (5.25% in August 2007 to 4.25 in December 2007).

The financial companies are morphing into holding banks with specific reserve requirements. Monies going in support "deleveraging" are also being held to build reserves and face the next wave(s) of credit failure on their opaque holdings, and buy other banks. Are secretive trading tools like dark pools of liquidity (or virtual trading arenas) still being used?

The June $150 billion stimulus package was only large enough to match the lost marginal propensity to spend, due to the gas price increase.

The July 2008, a housing rescue law (Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008 - H.R.3221) is an abysmal failure used for 100 homes, because the Act is too complicated and too expensive for the everyday homeowner to take advantage.

Criminal liabilities imposed under Sarbanes-Oxley have driven accountants to stricter and stricter accounting evaluations and interpretations of the "Mark-to-Market" rule. FEC could but has not changed.

The September 2008, $700 billion TARP provided banks with liquidity, but has not bought any toxic mortgages.

The next wave of forecloses (with the 5-7 year ARMs coming due) is being ignored. That will be on Obama.
By bigdoglv

Dec. 28, 2008

9:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

History will not be good to any of the government of our time. History will not single out the President. History will not judge with the gross partisainship we hear every day in the media. History also will judge with the facts. There is plenty of blame to go around, and history will spread it evenly.
By Houstonjac

Dec. 28, 2008

2:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

This is in response to the letter by James J. Donaldson published in the Las Vegas Sun on December 28, 2008 in which he concludes that " if Bush should be granted an opportunity to look back and see how history has judged his presidency, that lofty status he wishes for will have disappeared like a pipe dream, as have the hopes and dreams of many of our fellow citizens during his time in office.".

Recently in this space I made my case that history would be kindler and gentler to President Bush than the millions who are calling today for his head on a platter. In fact no one really knows how the history books will read.

The President has made numerous decisions which have disappointed me--including his immigration policy, and his decision to proceed with the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) without more definitive plans for the use and tracking of tax payer dollars and for his misuse of TARP funds to salvage a few more months for the US car makers.

As far as Iraq is concerned, by the time we invaded that country I was convinced in my own mind that the regime of Saddam Hussein threatened not only the internal security of the US( because of the potential for Hussein to give WMD to terrorists),but because I thought the regime undermined and threatened the stability of the entire region.

The Bush policy of a pre emptive strike on Iraq was acceptable to me, and still is. I realize that this policy is totally unacceptable to millions of my fellow Americans. I never did, and still do not, believe to this day that I was lied to by George Bush about the existence of WMD in Iraq. There was too much evidence to support the fact that these weapons not only existed but there had been known instances of their use against both Iran, and the Iraqi Kurds. In addition, I had shared a ride once from LAX international with a former UN inspector who described to me how elusive his experiences had been in conducting WMD inspections in Iraq in recent years during the Hussein regime. About the deception that had existed by the Iraqis in misleading the UN inspectors to avoid suspected WMD sites. At worst the US had very outdated intelligence; at best there was enough credible evidence to indict the Hussein regime for defying one UN resolution after the other with respect to demands for inspections in Iraq to confirm that WMD did not exist.

If there be one significant retrospective judgement to be made in the Bush history it will be about Iraq. Too many others share in the blame for the economy, and the debt that weighs on the US today.
By LasVegasRocks

Dec. 29, 2008

12:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

History will view Bush as the worst president our nation has ever had to endure.
By azsk8fan

Dec. 29, 2008

6:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

He will deserve every rotten thing said about him - president idiot is what he will be remembered as.
By Johnathan_Abbinett

Dec. 29, 2008

9:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

The only chemical and biological weapons Saddam had were provided by the USA - he was not capable of manufacturing these weapons. We knew how much he had because we had the receipts, and we knew how much he had used on the Iranians and the Kurds, and we knew how little he had left (as well as the shelf-life of each)!

But, many Americans don't want to hear these facts now do they?

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, Rice and Rove will go down in history as the lying, cheating, thieving criminals that they are - supported by th facts!

The only question remaining is will the American people fully investigate, indict and imprison everyone found guilty under the rule of law?

Sadly, I doubt there will be any justice done. After all, the American people have become too fatigued and fractured to do the right thing, and far too many support the criminal elites!
By jfnance32

Dec. 29, 2008

11:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

You can not say that Bush lied and cheated without leveling the same charges against Clinton.

Up to the very end of Clinton's term, he and his CIA were claiming that Saddam had WMD's.

I guess you want both men to be in jail.