George W. Bush, the 43rdpresident of the United States, has elicited a variety of public perceptions regarding his policies, personality and performance as ahead of state. In the United States and elsewhere, journalists, polling organizations and others have documented the expression of an evolving array ofopinions of President Bush.Time magazine named Bush as itsPerson of the Year for 2000[1] and 2004,[2] citing him as the most influential person during these two years.
Theapproval ratings of Bush ranged from a record high to a record low. Bush began his presidency with ratings near 60%.[3] In the time of national crisis following theSeptember 11 attacks, polls showed approval ratings greater than 85%, peaking in at 92%,[4] as well as a steady 80–90% approval for about four months after the attacks.[5] Afterward, his ratings steadily declined as the economy suffered and theIraq War initiated by his administration continued. By early 2006, his average rating was near 40%, and in July 2008, a poll indicated a low of 22%.[3][6][7]
| ||
|---|---|---|
Business and personal 46th Governor of Texas 43rd President of the United States Tenure Presidential campaigns   | ||
At the beginning of his first term, Bush's reputation suffered due to hisnarrow victory in Florida and the attendant controversy surrounding his electoral college victory, which included accusations of vote suppression and tampering. While routinely criticized byDemocrats, Bush was also sometimes criticized byRepublicans. A number of American celebrities and sports and media personalities engaged in heated criticism of Bush.
Bush was also subject to criticism in the international community for hisforeign policy. Street protests sometimes occurred during Bush's diplomatic visits to other countries. His policies were the subject of heated criticism in the 2002 elections in Germany[8] and the 2006 elections in Canada.[9]
Bush has enjoyed strong support among Republicans and Americans holdingconservative views, and for the2004 election, 95–98% of the Republican electorate approved of and voted for Bush, a figure exceeding the approval ofRonald Reagan. This support waned, however, due mostly to Republicans' growing frustration with Bush on the issues of spending andillegal immigration. Some Republicans even began criticizing Bush on his policies in Iraq, Iran, and thePalestinian territories.[10]
Raised inWest Texas, Bush's accent, vacations on his Texas ranch, and penchant for country metaphors contribute to his folksy, Americancowboy image.[11][12] "I think people look at him and thinkJohn Wayne", saysPiers Morgan, editor of the BritishDaily Mirror.[13] It has been suggested that Bush's accent was a deliberate and active choice, as a way of distinguishing himself fromhis family's traditionally wealthy, intellectual, Northeastern image, and anchoring himself to his Texas roots.[14] Both supporters and detractors have pointed to his country persona as reasons for their support or criticism.[12]
In contrast to his father,George H. W. Bush, who was perceived as havingtroubles with an overarching unifying theme, George W. Bush embraced larger visions and was seen as a man of larger ideas and associated huge risks.[15]
Bush'sintellectual capacities were questioned by the media[16] which speculated about hisIQ.Ahoax report claiming Bush had the lowest IQ of any American President of the last 50 years circulated in 2001.[17][18]
Though no official IQ test score for Bush has been found, the score he received on hisSAT during his final year of preparatory school at the exclusivePhillips Academy inAndover, Massachusetts, is known. He scored 1206. The score that Bush received on his qualifying test for the military suggests that his IQ was in the mid-120s, placing him in the 95thpercentile of the population for intelligence.[19] An article published in the journalPolitical Psychology estimated Bush's IQ at 125.[20] The same study estimated the IQ of Bush's predecessorBill Clinton at 149.[17] The study's director noted that "Bush may be 'much smarter' than the findings imply". A lecturer in American politics atWarwick University said: "A major part of [Bush's] public persona, to some extent, I think deliberately, is that he is not an intellectual. But he went to Yale, he has had an exclusive upbringing and he is by no means a dimwit."[18][21][22]
Bush's detractors tended to focus on various linguistic errors made by him during his public speeches, colloquially known asBushisms.[23] His mispronunciation of certain words was ridiculed in the media and in popular culture. Even as early as the2000presidential debates, it was the subject of aSaturday Night Live sketch (seeStrategery).[24] Perhaps his most famous nonstandard pronunciation is that ofnuclear, pronouncing it/ˈnukjələr/NOO-kyə-lər instead of/ˈnukliər/NOO-klee-ər, although he is not the only American president to have done this.Merriam-Webster lists this as a variant but nonstandard pronunciation ofnuclear.[25][26]
Bush began his presidency withapproval ratings near 50%.[27] Following theSeptember 11 attacks, Bush held approval ratings of greater than 85%, among the highest for any President. Since then, his approval ratings and approval of his handling of domestic, economic, and foreign policy issues steadily declined, and despite consistent efforts to do so, President Bush and his administration were unable to rally public support for the last three years, with each year seeing a steady decline in the Administration's support level to the point of Bush eventually dropping to a 19% approval rating and 77% disapproval rating, both records for a sitting president.[28]
In 2002, Bush had the highest approval rating of any president during a midterm congressional election sinceDwight D. Eisenhower. In an unusual deviation from the historical trend of midterm elections, the Republican Party regained control of theSenate and added to its majority in theHouse of Representatives. Typically, the President's party loses congressional seats in the midterm elections; 2002 marked only the third midterm election since theCivil War that the party in control of the White House gained seats in both houses of Congress (others were1902 and1934).
In 2003, Bush's approval spiked upward at the time of theSpace Shuttle Columbia disaster in February. The upward trend continued through theinvasion of Iraq in March. By late 2003, when presidential opponents began their campaigns in earnest, his approval numbers were in the low to middle 50s. Most polls tied the decline to growing concern over theUS-led occupation of Iraq and a slow recovery from the 2001 recession. Polls of May 2004 showed anywhere from a 53%[29] to a 46% approval rating.[30]
In April 2006, the president's approval continued to decline. Four states continue to maintain a positive approval rating: Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, and Nebraska. His disapproval rating in traditionallyred states had risen, with higher than 60% of voters disapproving in Ohio, Florida, Arkansas, New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, Virginia, Missouri, and Iowa. Even in his conservative-spun home state of Texas, disapproval reached 51 percent. His disapproval rating in several American states had reached an all-time high, with more than 70% disapproving in Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Delaware, Vermont, and New York. His highest approval rating stood at 55% in Utah, and his lowest, 24%, in Rhode Island.[31]
In polls conducted between August 7 and 16, 2006, Bush's average approval rating was 37.0%, and his average disapproval rating was 57.3%.[32]
A poll taken in mid September 2006 indicated that 48 percent of Americans believed the war with Iraq has made the US less safe, while 41 percent believed the war has made the US safer from terrorism.[33] Another poll shows that a majority of Americans, by a margin of 61 to 35 percent, believe that the United States is not better off because of Bush's policies.[34]
At the conclusion of 2006, an AP-AOL News telephone poll of 1,004 adults found Bush to be both the "top villain" and "top hero" of the year.[35] Bush was followed in the "villain" poll byOsama bin Laden, who took in 8 percent to Bush's 25 percent;Saddam Hussein (6 percent); and Iran'sMahmoud Ahmadinejad (5 percent). In the hero poll, Bush's 13 percent was followed by: Soldiers/troops in Iraq (6 percent),Jesus Christ (3 percent),Barack Obama (3 percent), andOprah Winfrey (3 percent).[36]
Polls conducted after Bush'stroop surge strategy was announced in January 2007 showed his approval rating had dropped to approximately 32%.
On February 13, 2008, an average of major polls indicated that Bush's approval rating stood at 33.3%.[32] The same average showed, for polls issued during the period from September 5 to 16, 2008, that Bush's approval rating was 31.9%, and his disapproval rating was 64.8%.[32]
A poll byRasmussen Reports on December 10, 2005, asked, "ShouldPresident Bush be impeached and removed from office?" 32% said "yes", and 58% said "no".[37] Earlier polls asked conditional versions of the impeachment question. For example,Zogby International on November 2, 2005, asked whether respondents agreed with the statement, "If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment." Americans agreed with this, 53% to 42%.[38] A poll byNewsweek on October 19, 2006, revealed that 51% of respondents believed that the impeachment of Bush should be a priority.[39] An August 2008 poll found that 41% of Americans thought that Bush is the worst President in United States history, while 50% disagreed.[40]
Bush's critics have questioned his leadership skills regarding some events. One occasion was on the moment of theSeptember 11 World Trade Center attacks: after being told by Chief of StaffAndrew Card that the US was "under attack", Bush continued with a reading lesson with elementary school children for seven minutes.[41][42] Democratic 2004 presidential candidateJohn Kerry cited Bush's lack of swift action, calling into question the incumbent's leadership capabilities, and concluding: "Americans want to know that the person they choose as president has all the skills and ability, all of the mental toughness, all of the gut instinct necessary to be a strong commander in chief."[43]
The9/11 Commission later released a summary of Bush's closed-door testimony, which stated that Bush's "instinct was to project calm, not to have the country see an excited reaction at a moment of crisis". It went on to say "The President felt he should project strength and calm until he could better understand what was happening."[42] This situation was featured prominently inMichael Moore's 2004 documentaryFahrenheit 9/11.
Twice, in late 2001 and early 2002, Bush stated that before entering the classroom he had seen on a television set the first plane hit theWorld Trade Center, and that he had assumed it was an accident.[44][45] This was impossible, as no televised footage of the first plane crashing into the tower was broadcast until the afternoon of that day. TheWhite House explained his remarks as "a mistaken recollection".[46]
Domestic criticism of Bush has waxed and waned throughout his administration. Before 9/11, Bush was reviled by the bulk of the Americanleft, mostly for his role in the controversial 2000 election, and for hisNo Child Left Behind education program.[47] The next major domestic item which Bush faced significant opposition to was his program oftax cuts, codified in theEconomic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and theJobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. Both acts ultimately passed, but calls for their repeal lasted until the end of the2004 campaign. Democratic candidateHoward Dean in particular called for a repeal of the part of the tax cuts which affected the wealthiest Americans in order to fund public health care programs and reduce the federal deficit.[48]
After Bush was re-elected, he madeSocial Security reform a top priority. He proposed options to permit Americans to divert a portion of their Social Security tax (FICA) into secured investments, creating a "nest egg" that he claimed would enjoy steady growth. This led Democrats to label the program a "privatization" of Social Security. Bush embarked on a 60-day tour to shore up public support for the plan, attacking the political reaction against reforms. Ultimately, Congressional Republicans could not reach a consensus on the plan, and the Democrats were unanimously opposed.[49] Bush was left without any political will to pass his reforms. The issue was dropped, and the status quo maintained.[50]
Bush had been increasingly forced to defend his actions on many fronts and had been unable to generate widespread support in the nation as a whole.[51] After the Democratic Party regained control of both houses of Congress in the2006 midterm elections,MSNBC reported that "The war in Iraq, scandals in Congress and declining support for Bush and Republicans on Capitol Hill defined the battle for House and Senate control".[52]
Calling Bush "The Mother of All Big Spenders", thelibertarian think tankCato Institute writes that "Sadly, the Bush administration has consistently sacrificed sound policy to the god of political expediency".[53] Cato's Chris Edwards said, "When he gives speeches now, you hear him bashing the Democrats on overspending ... It sounds ridiculous, because we know he's a big spender."[54] "After running up $3 trillion innew debt – including more than half a trillion dollars for his flawed Iraq policy - it is astounding that the president is once again lecturing Congress about fiscal responsibility and fiscal priorities," stated Senate Majority LeaderHarry Reid (D-Nev).[55]
Alan Greenspan, chairman of theFederal Reserve for 18 years, serving under six Presidents and who describes himself as "a lifelong Libertarian Republican", writes in his bookThe Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World that Bush and the congressional Republicans "swapped principle for power". "Little value was placed on rigorous economic policy debate or the weighing of long-term consequences".
Greenspan, again promoting his book, also says "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil"[56] and "gettingSaddam out of there was very important, but had nothing to do withweapons of mass destruction, it had to do with oil."[57][58] With regards to the costs of the war in Iraq, the nonpartisanCongressional Budget Office estimates that it will come to between one and one and a half trillion dollars by 2010.
Those costs – both to sustain the current mission in Iraq and to pay longer-term 'hidden' expenses like troop healthcare and replacement equipment – are far more than US officials advertised when Congress gave President Bush the authority to launch the invasion in March 2003. At the time, the White House and then-defense secretaryDonald Rumsfeld predicted a quick, decisive victory and counted on Iraqi oil revenues to pay for the war. And whenLawrence Lindsey, one of Bush's top budget advisers, estimated in 2003 that the entire undertaking could cost as much as $200 billion, he was fired ... McGovern said he is worried about the long-term financial impact of the war, adding that his primary concern is that the United States is borrowing money to pay for it. Some leading economists have predicted that, depending on how long troops remain in Iraq, the endeavor could reach several trillion dollars as a result of more 'hidden' costs —including recruiting expenses to replenish the ranks and the lifelong benefits the government pays to veterans. 'It is being paid for on the national credit card,' McGovern said. 'It is being put on the backs of our kids and grandkids. That is indefensible.[59]
In fact, according to the formerWorld Bank vice-president,Joseph Stiglitz, when factors like medical and welfare costs of US military servicemen are added in, the cost to date is closer to $3.3 trillion.[60] However, continues Stiglitz, "Three trillion is a very conservative number, the true costs are likely to be much larger than that ... The money being spent on the war each week would be enough to wipe out illiteracy around the world ... Just a few days' funding would be enough to provide health insurance for US children who were not covered," he said.
The relaxed regulation under the Bush presidency are regarded to have been a major contributing factor to thesubprime mortgage crisis, and there are fears that the United States and the world economy could slide into anotherGreat Depression.[61][62]
AHarper's Magazine column by Linda Bilmes, a lecturer in Public Finance atHarvard's Kennedy School, and Joseph Stiglitz titled "The $10 trillion hangover: Paying the price for eight years of Bush", "estimate that the cost of undoing the Bush administration's economic choices, from the wars in Iraq andAfghanistan to the collapse of the financial system, soaring debt and new commitments to interest payments andMedicare, all add up to over $10 trillion".[63][64][65] See alsoNational Debt Graph: Bush Sets 50-Year Record. The National debt fromGeorge Washington to the beginning of Ronald Reagan's term totaled about one trillion dollars.
Thecontroversial dismissal of seven US attorneys by the Bush administration'sDepartment of Justice (DOJ) in 2006, and their replacement by interim appointees, led critics to argue that the administration had undermined both the integrity of the Department of Justice and the non-partisan tradition of US Attorneys.[66][67][68][69] Others likened the event to theWatergate scandal, referring to it asGonzales-gate,[70] and members of Congress from both parties called for the resignation ofAttorney GeneralAlberto Gonzales.[71]
Bush came under more criticism whenHurricane Katrina slammed into theGulf Coast region during the early hours of August 29, 2005. In the wake of the hurricane, two levees protectingNew Orleans fromLake Pontchartrain collapsed, leading to widespread flooding. In the aftermath of thisdisaster, thousands of city residents, unable to evacuate prior to the hurricane, became stranded with little or no relief for several days, resulting in lawless and unsanitary conditions in some areas. Blame for inadequate disaster response was partially attributed to state and local authorities, but public outcry in the disaster's early hours was largely directed at the Bush administration, mainly theFederal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)[72] and theDepartment of Homeland Security[73] alleging weak crisis management and coordination. In fact, a Canadian search-and-rescue team actually made it to a New Orleans suburb five days before US aid arrived.[74]
Others have identified political conservatism as the overriding cause of problems in the way the disaster was handled.[75] These critics argue that the alleged unreadiness of theUnited States National Guard, negligence of federal authorities, and haplessness of officials such asMichael Brown did not represent incompetence on the part of the federal authorities, but were instead natural and deliberate consequences of theconservative philosophy embraced by the Bush administration, especially "sink or swim" policies toforce reductions in government expenditure andprivatize key government responsibilities such asdisaster preparedness,[76][77] both of which resulted in the systematic dismantling of FEMA by theUS Department of Homeland Security.[78]
Criticism led to the resignation of FEMA directorMichael Brown, and eventually, Bush himself accepted personal responsibility for what he deemed "serious problems in the federal government's response" in a September 2005 press conference. Several politicians called for either congressional or independent investigations, claiming that the Executive Branch cannot satisfactorily investigate itself.[79][80][81]
Bush has been criticized by national and international environmental groups for his administration's rollbacks of environmental protections going back more than three decades. These are in areas ranging from theEndangered Species Act and theClean Air andClean Water Acts toclimate change. According toMSNBC:
After four years in office, the George W. Bush administration has compiled an environmental record that is taking our nation in a new and dangerous direction. Last year alone, Bush administration agencies made more than 150 actions that weakened our environmental laws. Over the course of the first term, this administration led the most thorough and destructive campaign against America's environmental safeguards in the past 40 years.[82]
In "Texas Chainsaw Management" (2007)Robert F. Kennedy Jr. argues that "The verdict on George W. Bush as the nation'senvironmental steward has already been written in stone. No president has mounted a more sustained and deliberate assault on the nation's environment. No president has acted with more solicitude towardpolluting industries. Assaulting the environment across a broad front, the Bush administration has promoted and implemented more than 400 measures that eviscerate 30 years of environmental policy."[83] Kennedy has also written a bookCrimes Against Nature: How George W. Bush and His Corporate Pals Are Plundering the Country and Hijacking Our Democracy.
Bush has also been criticized by theUnion of Concerned Scientists, representing over 20Nobel Laureates, who accuse him of failing to acknowledge basic science on environmental issues. The group says that the Bush administration has engaged in intentional suppression and distortion of facts regarding the environment.[84][85]
In the waning days of his administration, Bush sought rule changes which would negatively impact a wide range of environmental issues.[86]
George Bush is behaving like a furiousdefaulter whose home is about to be repossessed. Smashing the porcelain, ripping the doors off their hinges, he is determined that there will be nothing worth owning by the time the bastards kick him out. His midnight regulations, opening America's wilderness to logging and mining, trashing pollution controls, tearing up conservation laws, will do almost as much damage in the last 60 days of his presidency as he achieved in the foregoing 3,000. His backers – among them the nastiest pollutocrats in America – are calling in their favours. But this last binge of vandalism is also the Bush presidency reduced to its essentials. Destruction is not an accidental product of its ideology. Destruction is the ideology.Neoconservatism is power expressed by showing that you can reduce any part of the world to rubble.[87]
 | This sectionpossibly contains originalsynthesis. Source material shouldverifiably mention andrelate to the main topic. Relevant discussion may be found on thetalk page.(February 2009) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Moral and ethical questions have been raised over the billions of dollars Bush has requested for the Iraq war,[88] which Senate Majority LeaderHarry Reid (D-Nevada) has said ensures that less money is made available to help children and the poor in the United States.[89] Critics have accused him of stinginess toward poor children with regards to health care in a time when it is increasingly unaffordable.[89][90] Another example is Bush's effort to cutfood stamps for the poor. In 2005, Bush called for "billions of dollars in cuts that will touch people on food stamps and farmers on price supports, children underMedicaid and adults in public housing."[91] While passed by the Republican Congress, initially the "White House proposed the restriction".[92]
No official moral leadership emerged to challenge Americans to think constructively about our place in the world, to redefine civic commitment and public responsibility. There was no man in a wheelchair in the White House urging on us a reassessment of American strength and weakness. What we had was a chest beater in a borrowed flight suit, instructing us to max out our credit cards for the cause.
Bush received criticism for publicly using phrases like "bring it on" and "wanted dead or alive," both regarding terrorists.[94] SenatorFrank Lautenberg, D-NJ, called Bush's language "irresponsible and inciteful". "I am shaking my head in disbelief," Lautenberg said. "When I served in the Army in Europe duringWorld War II, I never heard any military commander – let alone the commander in chief – invite enemies to attack U.S. troops."[95] TheIraqi Resistance group known as the "Islamic Jihad Army" put out a video that stated "George W. Bush, you have asked us to 'bring it on.' And so help me, [we will] like you never expected. Do you have another challenge?"[96][97] Bush apologized for these comments in 2006.[98]
Bush has taken a significant amount of criticism for his decision to invade Iraq in March 2003 and his handling of the situation afterwards. As Bush organized the effort, and ordered the invasion himself, he has borne the brunt of the criticism for the undeclared war.[99] ANewsweek poll taken in June 2007 showed a record 73% of respondents disapproving of Bush's handling of the war in Iraq.[100]
Another point of discussion has been whether the enhanced interrogation techniques in theAbu Ghraib prison and theGuantánamo Bay detainment camp constitutestorture or not. Although aCNN/USA Today/Gallup poll "found that sizable majorities of Americans disagree with tactics ranging from leaving prisoners naked and chained in uncomfortable positions for hours, to trying to make a prisoner think he was being drowned.[101]
Bush has stated that "We do nottorture."[102] Yet, many people and governments[103][104][105] and non-governmental organizations disagree and have staged several protests.[106][107][108][109] These sentiments are partly a result of thePentagon's suggestion that the president can decide whether normal strictures on torture still apply if it outweighs the security of the nation,[110] and because the Bush administration has repeatedly acted against attempts to restrict controversial interrogation techniques,[111] includingsigning statements by Bush to exclude himself from the laws created by theDetainee Treatment Act of 2005 as well as vetoing legislation that would have madewaterboarding and othercoercive interrogation methods illegal.[112] Furthermore, some[113][114][115] are concerned by the Bush administration's use ofExtraordinary rendition, where individuals are sent to other countries where torture can easily occur without any form of oversight. Bush defends this practice on the basis that:[116][117]
... the United States government has an obligation to protect the American people. It's in our country's interests to find those who would do harm to us and get them out of harm's way. And we will do so within the law, and we will do so in honoring our commitment not to torture people. And we expect the countries where we send somebody to, not to torture, as well. But you bet, when we find somebody who might do harm to the American people, we will detain them and ask others from their country of origin to detain them. It makes sense. The American people expect us to do that.
A Pentagon memo lists many interrogation techniques which were requested and approved during Bush's presidency on the basis that "The current guidelines for interrogation procedures at GTMO limit the ability of interrogators to counter advanced resistance".[118] The Bush administration's connection to these controversial interrogation techniques had been one of the main considerations in themovement to impeach Bush.
These controversial enhanced interrogation techniques have in several cases become military policy[118][119] and in response to Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse controversy Germany had looked into seeking to charge Rumsfeld and two others with war crimes.[120]
Under the Bush administration, more aid has been given to Africa than under any other US president or world leader in history, with a total of $15 billion spent to fight AIDS and poverty as well as diplomatic assistance between warring peoples and other humanitarian efforts. However, this was in nominal terms. In real terms, he actually lowered the percent of GDP given as aid to foreign countries.[121][122]
American pundit and psychiatrist[123]Charles Krauthammer, noting the reaction of liberals to Bush and his policies, in a 2003column coined the termBush derangement syndrome to describe "the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency—nay—the very existence of George W. Bush".[123][124] While Krauthammer's column was somewhat tongue-in-cheek (e.g., "What is worrying epidemiologists about theDean incident, however, is that heretofore no case had been reported inVermont, or any other dairy state"), the term indicates a belief that some extreme criticisms of Bush are of emotional origin rather than based in fact or logic. The term has been adopted by writers across the political spectrum[125][126][127]and is most closely associated with liberal reaction to Bush policies past and present.[124][126][127][128]
The neologism is not unique to Bush,[129] with several commentators borrowing Krauthammer's coinage to defineThatcher derangement syndrome,[130][131] in reference toMargaret Thatcher, referring to the extremely vitriolic reactions Thatcher evokes among British leftists,[132] both during and following her tenure as Britain's prime minister,[132] and most notably distinguished in the aftermath ofher death in 2013.[133] Similarly, the termTrump derangement syndrome was coined to refer to perceived irrational criticism ofDonald Trump.
At the time of Bush's re-election there was a mixed response from around the World. A global sampling in 2005 of 21 nations found that 58% of those sampled believed that the president's reelection would have a negative impact on their peace and security; only 26% believed it would have a positive one.[134]
In 18 of the 21 countries surveyed, a majority of respondents held an unfavorable opinion of Bush. Respondents indicated that they judged his administration as "negative" for world security.[134][135]
In the United Kingdom theDaily Mirror newspaper ran the following headline the day of Bush's reelection: "How Can 59,054,087 People Be So Dumb?", underlining Bush's unpopularity in some sections of the British press.[136]
After his reelection in 2004, Bush was viewed favorably by 38% and unfavorably by 53% in Italy. However this was worse in other countries: "Three-quarters of those in Spain and more than 80% in France and Germany had a negative view of President Bush's role in world affairs."[135][137] In Turkey, 72% of those polled said that Bush's reelection made them "feel worse about Americans".[134]In November 2006, a survey taken in Great Britain, Mexico, and Canada showed that they believed Bush was more dangerous than North Korean leaderKim Jong-il and IranianPresidentMahmoud Ahmadinejad.[138]
InIslamic countries, opinion of Bush was even less favorable. Bush's unfavorable ratings there were particularly high, often over 90%.[139] In Jordan, for example, Bush's favorable rating was only nine percent.[140]
Bush enjoyed somewhat more favorable views among the populations of some allied states. In one multi-nation poll after Bush's2004 reelection, the three countries (out of 21 polled) in which a majority or plurality saw Bush's return to office as positive for peace and security in the world were the Philippines (63%), India (62%), and Poland (44%).[134] In one poll of 10 countries, Israel was the only country where the population had a net favorable opinion, with 62 percent favoring Bush.[140]
By 2016, the public consensus in both parties was that the Iraq War was based on invalid reasons, did not accomplish anything positive, and was highly detrimental. Bush admitted in his 2010 memoir Decision Points: "The reality was that I had sent American troops into combat based in large part on intelligence that proved false ... No one was more shocked or angry than I was when we didn't find the weapons. I had a sickening feeling every time I thought about it. I still do."[141]
During the 2016 debates, Donald Trump frequently stated the invasion was totally wasteful and did not produce any useful results.[142][143] WhenJeb Bush seemed to defend the Iraq War in 2016, he was widely criticized, and had to reverse his answer, saying, "Knowing what we know now I would not have engaged—I would not have gone into Iraq".[144][145]
Republican Vice PresidentJD Vance labeled the Iraq invasion (in which he served in as a Marine) as disastrous.[146]
Since 2006,surveys of professional historians have given the Bush presidency low marks. A 2006Siena College poll of 744 professors reported the following results:[147]
Thomas Kelly, professor emeritus of American studies at Siena College, said: "President Bush would seem to have small hope for high marks from the current generation of practicing historians and political scientists. In this case, current public opinion polls actually seem to cut the President more slack than the experts do." Dr. Douglas Lonnstrom, Siena Collegeprofessor of statistics and director of theSiena Research Institute, stated: "In our 2002 presidential rating, with a group of experts comparable to this current poll, President Bush ranked 23rd of 42 presidents. That was shortly after 9/11. Clearly, the professors do not think things have gone well for him in the past few years. These are the experts that teach college students today and will write the history of this era tomorrow."[147]
In 2008, theHistory News Network conducted an unscientific poll among 109 professional historians. That poll found that, among those professional historians, 98% believe that the Bush presidency is a failure, and that 61% believe it to be the worst in history.[148] Another poll done in 2009 byC-SPAN among 65 professional historians ranks Bush 36 of 42 former presidents.[149]
A 2010 Siena College poll of 238 Presidential scholars found that Bush was ranked 39th out of 43, with poor ratings in handling of the economy, communication, ability to compromise, foreign policy accomplishments and intelligence.[150]
In 2004,Michael Moore released his documentaryFahrenheit 9/11, which went on to become the highest-grossing political documentary of all time.[151] The film is critical of Bush and theWar on Terrorism.Christopher Hitchens andEd Koch have criticizedFahrenheit 9/11 as dishonest and inaccurate.[152][153]
In 2008, directorOliver Stone, a noted liberal and Democrat who is known as a critic of Republican policymakers including Bush, directed a biographical film about Bush entitledW., featuringJosh Brolin in the title role.[154]W. was appraised as a surprisingly even-handed and restrained treatment of Bush and his policies, given Bush's incredibly low popularity around the time of the film's release.[155][156]
In 2018, directorAdam McKay, who had previously directedThe Big Short in 2015, releasedVice, a biopic on George W. Bush's Vice PresidentDick Cheney, withChristian Bale in the lead role, andSam Rockwell in the role of George W. Bush. Although primarily focusing on Cheney, Adam McKay remains overtly critical of George W. Bush and his administration. The film portrays Bush as an ambitious former alcoholic seeking only to "impress hisfather, and shows him as malleable and boastful".[157]
In February 2010 a roadside billboard appeared featuring an image ofGeorge W. Bush and a caption with the words "MISS ME YET?". The billboard was initially spotted onInterstate 35 inWyoming, Minnesota but soon other billboards like it popped up around the country.[158][159] It was first considered to be aninternet hoax, but was confirmed as a real advertisement.[160] The Billboard led to other Bush-themed merchandise with thecatchphrase "Miss Me Yet?" from agencies such asCafePress,[161] and the image plus the related caption became aninternet meme.
The billboard was mentioned onRush Limbaugh's talk radio show as some callers mentioned the billboard did exist.[162] It was later discovered to have been created and sponsored by an anonymous source who wanted to remain that way as per the billboard owner Schubert & Hoey Outdoor Advertising.[160] According to the billboard owner, the sign was purchased by a group of small business owners located in the seven-county metropolitan area.[163] Later, Mike Rivard, one of the six business owners from Minnesota, came forward and toldFox News that one of the reasons why they did it was they thought it was a hilarious message, and the image they used was found online.[164]
Journalists from several media sources opined that the publication of Bush's memoirDecision Points in November 2010 was intended to or would have the effect of improving his post presidential image.[165]
After he left office, Bushhas been ranked between 31st (byUSPC[citation needed]) and 39th (bySiena Research Institute[166]) out of 44 presidents in the history of the US. However, following the election ofDonald Trump as the 45th president of the United States, 61% of Americans in 2018 said they had a favorable view of Bush, compared to 33% when he left office.[167] Also in 2018, 54% of Democrats viewed Bush favourably.[167]
sizable majorities of Americans disagree with tactics
...denying his agency tortures prisoners. But most Americans think otherwise.
a majority of Americans think it's wrong for the government to use any of these methods
No country should exclude itself from the international human rights development process
More than 300 protesters gathered outside the US embassy for the hour-long demonstration.
The men and women who survived imprisonment, beatings and rapes knew ahead of time that yesterday's arrest of a group of their supporters in front of the White House was a symbolic protest to spotlight the continuing use of torture by governments around the world, including the United States.
.jpg)
{{cite journal}}:Cite journal requires|journal= (help)sadistic, blatant and wanton criminal abuse
The utter and complete failure of U.S. authorities to take any action to investigate high-level involvement in the torture program could not be clearer,...
