Originally Posted by Euroguy
Zoebird, that was very interesting although I have to disagree about a US president's legacy being mostly in the judicial system. This might be true for internal affairs, but certainly in the case of America the president has a huge role to play in all international matters, including wars but also ecology, global economy via trade agreements and the like. All these things affect everyone in the world on a daily basis even long after the president is out of office. And eventually, the problems an administration causes abroad come back to hurt the country somewhere down the line.
actually, the presidency doesn't have a lot to do with this either. a large part of treaty agreements have to go through the legislature first, approval there is critical. And in some instances, even though a president can act--on controversial issues--he still may not. For example, the kyoto protocol was 'ready to go' as far as the legislature, etc, went, and Clinton could have signed it before leaving office--but didn't because he didn't want to be politically accountable, particularly with the new republican administration taking over.
also, the larger part of that influence again comes from the office of the secretary of state--while under the auspices of the presidency, like economic policy, it's really a matter of long-term philosophical/political concepts that are at play, and not the individual work of a person over 8 years. In a few more years, there will be a new president: and if the party is the same, then the policy will be similar or identical; if the party is different, then the policy will be different. So it's not the president himself that impacts, but rather the political party and it's platforms or ideologies at work.
In my view Bush has contributed massively to the rising sentiment of fear and to the further division of a world that urgently requires uniting.
in my view, bush is simply the figurehead for a political ideology that comes through a particular party platform. there's also corruption involved. his family's fortune is in oil, directly linked to whatever the situation is in the middle east. our VP's companies are making a great deal of money off the war effort and in the rebuilding effort. And, there are others.
but ultimately, i still see it as a party issue, not an individual presidency issue. Any republican president--regardless of name or business connections--would likely be 'causing these problems' and any democratic president would be 'causing other problems.'