What will happen with George Bush

Riddle101

With the US election on foot to choose the two presidential candidates i thought it would be interesting to see what your opinon on what will happen with Bush after he leaves office. Will he take up another government job suce as Governor, Senator, Vice President or Secretary of something. Maybe he might return to civillian life like Bill Clinton or maybe he'll just fade out of exsitance. So what do you think?

I think that first Bush will proberly get, is a kick in the balls by Micheal Moore, then suffer some backlash by a lot of angry mothers who have lost their son due to wars in Iraq and Afganistan and when he goes finally through all that he might return to Hell and take control over hell again and take off his costume to reveal that he is none other then Satan. Or maybe he'll just go back to his life as a normal person

DrumSteve

Riddle101 wrote: »

With the US election on foot to choose the two presidential candidates i thought it would be interesting to see what your opinon on what will happen with Bush after he leaves office. Will he take up another government job suce as Governor, Senator, Vice President or Secretary of something. Maybe he might return to civillian life like Bill Clinton or maybe he'll just fade out of exsitance. So what do you think?

I think that first Bush will proberly get, is a kick in the balls by Micheal Moore, then suffer some backlash by a lot of angry mothers who have lost their son due to wars in Iraq and Afganistan and when he goes finally through all that he might return to Hell and take control over hell again and take off his costume to reveal that he is none other then Satan. Or maybe he'll just go back to his life as a normal person

i think most likely the second option. he has kinda faded into (relative) obscurity due to the nominees being elected for the electon.

but i think he'll just kinda fade away back to the ranch for a few years.

BostonFenian

Riddle101 wrote: »

With the US election on foot to choose the two presidential candidates i thought it would be interesting to see what your opinon on what will happen with Bush after he leaves office. Will he take up another government job suce as Governor, Senator, Vice President or Secretary of something. Maybe he might return to civillian life like Bill Clinton or maybe he'll just fade out of exsitance. So what do you think?

I think that first Bush will proberly get, is a kick in the balls by Micheal Moore, then suffer some backlash by a lot of angry mothers who have lost their son due to wars in Iraq and Afganistan and when he goes finally through all that he might return to Hell and take control over hell again and take off his costume to reveal that he is none other then Satan. Or maybe he'll just go back to his life as a normal person

Hmm. Well first of all, it's going to be a great relief to be rid of him, no matter what he does after.

I think he's going to retreat to his ranch and hope his legacy somehow improves with time. I think he knows the score, and you won't see much of him after.

Sand

Hell probably retire to the ranch, build his library and give speaking tours. Hell probably also continue to advocate for African development and continue working on the behalf of African interests as he has done as President.

He may also get involved in the illegal immigration debate and attempt to work positive change there - this is especially possible if McCain is President. Bush has solid conservitive credentials [certainly better than McCains], and good links with the hispanic community along with his brother Jeb so he can act as a good mediator and swing a deal.

His decision to invade Iraq, and his refusal to abandon the elected Iraqi government to the forces of intolerant totalarianism despite massive pressure from cheese eating surrender monkeys, will also be vindicated as a broadly democratic and free [certainly by their neighbourhoods standards - Palestine, Iran, Saudia Arabia....] Iraq emerges over the next decade or so.

Its unlikely hell get involved directly in another electoral race - Once youve got to the top of the hill, everything else is a step down and somewhat demeaning. Look at Bill Clintons indirect involvement in his wifes campaign.

Kevster

If I was him, I would stay very very low for years after the new president is elected; and I wouldn't take any major post. I think he'll probably go to his ranch in Texas for a few months afterwards and will then decide what to do. All former American presidents have their own security service protecting them (as payed-for by the government) as far as I know. He should be fine.

AngryHippie

I reckon he's gonna go back to the walker ranch and spend the rest of his days trying to figure out what credibility and respect mean, and how they could have been useful in his play pwesident like daddy did game...

The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.

George Washington, Treaty of Tripoli 1796

The ones I'd be most concerned about are:
Cheney
Rumsfeld
Wolfowitz
Bremer Jr.
Libby
Condi Rice
George Tenet
Richard Armitage
Doug Feith
Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdul Aziz and Family
Any directors of the Carlyle group not mentioned above
Stephen Cambone
Abram Shulsky
Lawrence Kaplan
William Kristol

This the bulk of the planners, advisors, various department directors and even a few Pentagon worms that pushed the case for an aggressive war against an oppressed nation of poorly equipped underfed people whose only quibble with the US was their betrayal 10 years earlier.

My concern about them is that while GW is headin for the hills, these sick/stupid fcukers (its one or the other, delete as acceptable to yourself) are still knocking around the lobby groups, company boards and administration that really controls what happens in and around Washington, And I don't think that either Obama or Clinton has any idea how to escape their influence, and make the decisions necessary to stop the waste of human life, both domestic US and abroad. TBH I think McCain might be the only one that knows them all well enough to push his own agenda, but fcuk only knows what that particular agenda is.....PTSD anyone ?

Anyway, It'll sure make for some interesting viewing & reading.

BTW if Micheal Moore goes within 20 feet of GW without express permission, He'll get his fat head blown off by the SS (secret service, not the SchultzStaffel) And he knows it. Bush has an armed guard convoy for life.
And a pension....
Wheres the justice...
Maybe he'll get knobrot
maybe he already has......

Anyhoo, Time will tell.:eek:

bobbyjoe

He'll end up on the board of directors on several military, energy and security companies raking it in. He will be used for his contacts but his opinions will not be seriously considered as everything he touches turns to crap.
Doubt he would be to popular on the public speaking circuit like Clinton and Blair are. Maybe a for Haliburton employees and whoever make weapons or the security industry.

estebancambias

He will form an alliance with Bin Laden.

I feel sorry for him in ways. Surely there is a good man behind what he is portrayed to be.

AngryHippie

Should be used for target practice the cnut

purple'n'gold

George W Bush will retire into wealthy (relatively obscure) retirement, pursue business interests, and spend a lot of time on his ranch pretending he is a cowboy. He will also get someone to write a book about him (leaving out the negatives of course) and publish it under his own name. He will live happily ever after, safe in the knowledge, (that in his own mind,) he did a great job for “this great nation of ours”.

lostexpectation

put his feet up in crawford, did you see him acting the fool with mccain, mccain was so embarrassed.

galwaybabe

Maybe he's not going anywhere for a while. have a look at these...http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=AatszsnHydk and http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=_JSDfQYs8eY

Manic Moran

I strongly doubt that there will be no elections.

To the original question, I'm inclined to agree with the majority that he's basically going to chill out on his ranch for a bit.

I don't know if history will vindicate him per se, but with less of a focus on Iraq in the future, a more balanced view of his overall policies will come forward. At that point, I'm sure he'll return to the speaking circuit.

NTM

cozmik

Manic Moran wrote: »

I don't know if history will vindicate him per se, but with less of a focus on Iraq in the future, a more balanced view of his overall policies will come forward.

NTM

Let's look at some major achievements of the Bush administration


Lost popular vote but won in court, claimed mandate.
Dropped the ball on 9/11.
Led the U.S. falsely into Iraq war.
Let Osama bin Laden escape.
Squandered post 9-11 world goodwill by invading Iraq.
Instituted shameful regime of torture.
Bungled occupation of Iraq and destabilised Middle East.
Undermined the U.S. Constitution through “signing statements.”
Running up a gigantic deficit.
Compounded the threat of continuing terrorism.
On the plus side he has proven the worth of having term limits.

Bush will retire to his ranch oblivious of the mess he has created while the U.S. will face lifelong cleanup.

No, history will not vindicate Bush.He will be remembered for his callous and simplistic view of the world, and his disregard for international law. He will also forever be associated with the needless deaths of many thousands of innocent Iraqis.

Mr.Micro

Bush will fade away and grow old and die like all mortals. If he is a religious person he will have to deal with his actions and square them right or wrong. Other options he has are a big job with Haliburton or any of the other big companies he favoured during his tenure. I do not believe though that he will be vindicated in his actions but perhaps Iraq will be forgotten in the long term, as the US will probably be at war with some other country like Russia, China, and there is always the old favourite Iran.

Mr.Bush will be disappointed to leave office leaving Iran intact. Well, you ca'nt have everything. I will be glad to see him go and the likes of Cheney et al, but the cynic in me says, to be replaced by just as bad.

Manic Moran

cozmik wrote: »

Let's look at some major achievements of the Bush administration

And surprise, the vast majority of those are related to the war on terror.

No mention, for example, of the change in immigration policy, the fact that he's put more money than any previous US president into non-military aid to Africa, or more money than any previous US president into environmental research. (You may disagree with his opinions on what to do about the results, but he did put the money there). We had a Washington or Oregon teacher on here a while back explaining why he thought that Bush's education policy was one of the best things he'd seen done to education in years. (Anyone who can tell me how to use the search function to search for a phrase instead of a collection of individual words, please tell me). The IT industry publications I get are quite praiseful of the actions the Administration has taken in the industry, and important though IT is, it doesn't quite get the same headlines as blowing things up. His administration doesn't spend every waking hour trying to think about Bin Laden and the next threat to the US.

NTM

bartholomewbinn

He is an ignorant sadistic hypocrite of the highest order. An American president who publicly endorses and allows his forces to torture people? The world will be well rid of this wretched reprobate, roll on next November.

http://www.counterbias.com/054.html

cozmik

Manic Moran wrote: »

And surprise, the vast majority of those are related to the war on terror.

eh?

Iraq and the "war on terror" are central to the topic at hand, why else would people ask if history will vindicate Bush?

cozmik

BAGHDAD — It's a damning indication of how poorly things have gone for the United States during its five-year misadventure in Iraq that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can drive in broad daylight though this war-ravaged city and spend the night at the presidential palace, but George W. Bush can't.

Despite the presence of 157,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, the visit left the impression that Iran's President now feels more comfortable in Baghdad than his U.S. counterpart does.
Unlike Mr. Bush's cloak-and-dagger visits here — fly-in trips to heavily guarded U.S. military bases that only last a few hours, often with no advance notice given to even the Iraqi government — Mr. Ahmadinejad's schedule was announced days earlier. He spent last night at Mr. Talabani's palace, across the Tigris River from the fortified Green Zone that houses the massive new U.S. embassy.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080302.wiraqi03/BNStory/International/home?cid=al_gam_mostview

This is what happens when people elect nutjobs like Bush, the ayatollahs get a friendly Shiite regime in Iraq.

And it only cost U.S. taxpayers $2 trillion.

speedboatchase

I miss the old Iraq with good old Saddam and the mass graves. Petreaus who?

Manic Moran

cozmik wrote: »

eh?

Iraq and the "war on terror" are central to the topic at hand, why else would people ask if history will vindicate Bush?

By that argument, Carter's presidency can be defined simply by the Iran hostage saga, and JFK's presidency by the Cuban Missile Crisis. Iraq was not the only policy decision he has made, and as per usual in US politics, none of them have been exactly met with unanimous approval.

NTM

invincibleirish

Dont forget an obligatory book deal, i for one will definitely buy it just to see what he says.

as mentioned he'll definitely get seats on some big companies.

set up some foundations or charities, eg G.W. Bush kids are our future foundation

Speech tour

prepare Jeb for 2012?

he might take a leaf out of Blairs book and go teaching at Yale,

"Yo kids im George, i'll be taking your international relations class for the year...

...Lecture 1, the United Nations....."

nacho libre

speedboatchase wrote: »

I miss the old Iraq with good old Saddam and the mass graves. Petreaus who?

so do i.

http://www.ericblumrich.com/thanks.html

Romantic S

Write a memoir (he's very intellegent, contrary to popular belief[instigated in large part be him]), sit on a few boards and take it easy. Cut the ribbon on a few of the hundreds of schools that will be built when Iraq is a region leader, thanks to his intervention.
Make a brief comeback in 2016 to help get Jeb the presidency, although he won't have much to do as Jeb will have been John McCain's VP for 4 years at that point.

cozmik

Manic Moran wrote: »

By that argument, Carter's presidency can be defined simply by the Iran hostage saga, and JFK's presidency by the Cuban Missile Crisis. Iraq was not the only policy decision he has made, and as per usual in US politics, none of them have been exactly met with unanimous approval.

NTM

Neither Carter or JFK left a failing economy with their policies.

Mr.Micro

Dont forget an obligatory book deal, i for one will definitely buy it just to see what he says.

That will be a childs book of course, titled " Osama Bin Laden, the Bogeyman and the the war on Terror". Mr. Bush can get someone to help him write it.

Mr.Micro

What is the legacy of Mr.Bush? A US economy with a massive debt to other countries like China, a $3 trillion tag for the Iraq war, a safer world, a safer US, torture as acceptable, extraordinary rendition, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan of course, curtailment of civil liberties in the US, paranoia etc, only some of the things that come to mind. It was probably all worth it as the US got the oil in Iraq, the main objective all along, and now has a foothold in Iraq to keep it.

Dalfiatach

Mr.Micro wrote: »

What is the legacy of Mr.Bush? A US economy with a massive debt to other countries like China, a $3 trillion tag for the Iraq war, a safer world, a safer US, torture as acceptable, extraordinary rendition, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan of course, curtailment of civil liberties in the US, paranoia etc, only some of the things that come to mind. It was probably all worth it as the US got the oil in Iraq, the main objective all along, and now has a foothold in Iraq to keep it.

:eek: Surely you jest. This old world is a lot more unstable and dangerous today than it was when Bush arrived!

Manic Moran

cozmik wrote: »

Neither Carter or JFK left a failing economy with their policies.

Right, so you could argue that they had some effect other than the hot ticket items of their time.

The same goes for Bush.

NTM

he'll get hair on his palms :cool:

cozmik

Sorry, NTM - but you're really clutching at straws here. The positives in Bush's presidency are few and far between the overall picture reveals that he has failed miserably in major areas of presidential performance.

Bush is headed for historical disgrace and there is absolutley nothing he can do about it. As Abraham Lincoln once said "Fellow citizens, we cannot escape history"

Mr.Micro

cozmik wrote: »

Sorry, NTM - but you're really clutching at straws here. The positives in Bush's presidency are few and far between the overall picture reveals that he has failed miserably in major areas of presidential performance.

Bush is headed for historical disgrace and there is absolutley nothing he can do about it. As Abraham Lincoln once said "Fellow citizens, we cannot escape history"

I have to agree, it is hard to think of many or should I say any positives with regards to Bush's tenure. Then again the Neocons got what they wanted, I guess and they will be happy. Has the US, the land of the free, lurched more to the right during this time? Saddam is gone but at what price? The loss of life, all for the whim of Mr.Bush and the Neocon set, who probably subscribe to the man and superman philosophy, or the end justifies the means.

Chakar

The world is a much safer place especially in Ireland during the tenure of President Bush. However that's due in large part to the events of 9/11, which drove home to the U.S. federal and state governments and the American people, the threat of terrorism in the world.

The U.S. were somewhat lax in pursuing terrorists, terrorist organisations and other security related matters before 9/11 but when it happened they took unilateral action, taking out terrorist camps in Africa, Iraq and Afghanistan. They cut off the money supplying terrorist organisations and their accounts. They beefed up security worldwide and at home coming down hard on any terrorist related activities.

The U.S. put intense pressure on all countries to take action to curb and eliminate terrorist activities within their borders. The eventual demise of the IRA was accelerated by 9/11 with no funds or support coming from within United States.

Regarding Iraq it's a too early to say for sure as the future of Iraq lies in the hands of the 44th President. But the aftermath of the invasion could have been handled better with greater numbers of troops for 'overwhelming force'.

Manic Moran

Much though I am far from reluctant to give Bush any credit, I'm not entirely sure how one can make the case that the PIRA peace process is a result of 9/11 or Bush Administration policy. I certainly recall the whole thing long pre-dating it. It is true that a lot of the sources of funding have dried up as a result of the US public/plastic paddys rethinking their notion of 'romantic terrorists', but the need for that funding had reduced quite a bit by that point.

NTM

BostonFenian

speedboatchase wrote: »

I miss the old Iraq with good old Saddam and the mass graves. Petreaus who?

You don't need to miss the mass graves. You can enjoy the ones that are being created right now as a result of the invasion and the consequential sectarian violence.

Saddam was a bad guy, but if I hear that one more time as a justification for the war in Iraq, I'm going to throw up.

First we were told he helped with 9/11. Then when we found out that wasn't the case (not that many believed), we were told that he had nukes, but wait not nukes, he might have anthrax, mustard gas, sarin, etc, and that's bad. See he used it on the Kurds before? Except, when asked if the component materials for those weapons had anything to do with rumsfeld's visits to Iraq during the Iran Iraq war, if they were meant to be used against the Iranians, it's sort of hard to get an honest answer. When that failed, we were told he was just a bad guy.

So when are we going to invade all the other country's with 'bad guys' running them? It's sheer BS, and I'm sick of it. He *was* a bad guy, but if you believe that's why we invaded, then I'm afraid you bought into a lie.

nacho libre

Chakar wrote: »

They cut off the money supplying terrorist organisations and their accounts. They beefed up security worldwide and at home coming down hard on any terrorist related activities.

'.

The US were not lax in funding terrorist groups, like PRMI( formerly known as Jundullah), in Iran. Don't you find that hypocriticial? are you of the view that there are instances where distinctions can be made between good and bad terrorists - depending on who they are aligned to?

AngryHippie

nacho libre wrote: »

The US were not lax in funding terrorist groups, like PRMI( formerly known as Jundullah), in Iran. Don't you find that hypocriticial? are you of the view that there are instances where distinctions can be made between good and bad terrorists - depending on who they are aligned to?

Yes and no, But it is a hypocrisy that is inherent in terrorist acts that have an element of popular support, By popular support, I do not mean banner waving flag burning mobs, but instead a tolerance of those who plan it, or support it, on political moral religious economic or ethnic grounds. Oppressed people, backed into a corner, they are very susceptible to suggestion by those in a position to manipulate desperation and frustration into a terrible act of destruction in order to change their situation.
Unfortunately, it is the usual suspects that position themselves to take full advantage of this desperation and despair, and the A team they ain't. They get used by whoever can get closest, sometimes changes are made for their lot that constitute an improvement of their lot, usually not. It still does not make it right, but there are good (misguided, desperate) terrorists and bad terrorists and an absence of popular support (read as above) The bad will usually be yielded by society for justice. It is not for me to judge any particular instances, But I do have strong feelings over several "politically motivated" acts of terror in Ireland that were committed by bad people, and again, several that were well intentioned misguided acts orchestrated by a clever manipulation of vulnerable youth and republican rhetoric

Its a dilly of a pickle

BostonFenian

The current definition of terrorism is crap, and it's just another word like communism and fascism to get blood boiling against the common enemy so that government power can be extended in the name of security. It's been happening since the beginning of time.

The fact remains that it's pretty silly to demonize one group of people for indiscriminately bombing civilians with handmade devices while not saying the same of nations doing the same from miles in the air.

Especially, when as in a lot of cases, those people who commit acts of 'terrorism' would never have done so if they'd not been bombed out of their home, lost a mother, etc.