Otherwise, its mostly along the lines of good riddance.
Reuters: Editorials worldwide pillory Bush one final time
...Germany's Sueddeutsche Zeitung... "The Failure." "He confused stubbornness with principles.
Canada's Toronto Star..."Goodbye to the worst president ever," it declared. "Bush was an unmitigated disaster..."
Britain's Daily Mail..."He leaves the world facing its biggest crisis since the Depression, the Middle East in flames and U.S. standing at an all-time low.
The Sydney Morning Herald..."singular lack of curiosity in international matters" in an editorial titled "Farewell to a flawed and unpopular commander-in-chief."
Le Monde..."It's hard to find a historian who won't say that Bush was the most catastrophic leader the U.S. has ever known..."
3 comments:
I tend to agree he was one of the worst ever. Historians though are not a very good sample to judge him by. Why? To a person they're all very liberal so your pollis just a bit biased. They hated Reagan as well and whether u like the guy or not and I didn't, he was a big success as a President, as far as the public was concerned.
It would be interesting to compare the foreign press at the end of the presidential terms but I doubt if anyone has generating more negativity than Bush.
Politicians are a special breed. Politics is a very strange animal. Reagan did a horrible job policy wise and his choices were disastrous for most Americans, but he at least was able to keep the country's mood in a sensible range. With Bush, his policies are the worst yet but he brought in an era of paranoia and fear. He debased the mood of the country. He was the worst of the worst.
Yes. Paulson's little speech last Sept. really was the final straw. The BV$Hiviks not only left us all with the wreckage but they basically told us we not them were going to pay the price for their failures because in their elite Corp. society the plebs not the aristocracy are assigned the job of suffering. As the saying goes in the Corp. world "Shit rolls downhill."
Post a Comment