I have no beef with the points cited; I think its a fairly decent list of many of Bush's Greatest Misses... but like most compilation albums, it tends to skip the perhaps more interesting stuff in favor of Top 40 hits.

But, as for those...

The financial/economic collapse was listed here at what... #14? And it's perhaps not entirely clear that anything Bush did/didn't do really precipitated the pop of the bubble any more than things done in the previous (clinton) administration. The main rise in the real estate bubble came about 1998-2006; and yes, that was mainly on Bush's watch. But the fiscal policy wasn't any change from Clinton's / Greenspan's; and who's to blame for failing to police Fanny and Freddy, and encouraging subprime lending incentives? Mainly Barney Frank. I think the question of Bush's stewardship of the economy should probably deserve its own separate analysis altogether, and be treated as the ensemble performance that it was; blaming him for the economic mess i think is perhaps unfair, or at the very least leaves many other culprits unnamed. It's too easy to nail him for the economy, when really he had zero relevance to the issue in the end. Well, mostly. I think he did whatever his 'experts' told him to do/not to do.

Now, torture, on the other hand... Yeah, lay it on his doorstep. Although i think there's (again) a wider cast that dragged him into some seriously stupid territory. One of the reasons Bush-Bashing has its limits is that he was *never smart enough to be fully responsible for such enormously stupid things* (I know that seems to be contradictory on the face of it, but anyone who knows Serious Stupid is that it usually requires a bunch of highly-intelligent people - e.g. Wolfowitz? Pearle? - to make it happen) Bush's great tragedy was probably his general helplessness, and willingness to take bad advice without caution or contemplation. In some ways he's been the Simplicius Simplicissimus of world affairs. Only, not as funny as that 17th century novel, and far less sympathetic.

In case no one's ever read it.... it's here

http://rbsche.people.wm.edu/teaching/grimmelshausen/

People, don't bother with Khan. He's back from a sabbatical, but is well known as the dumbest SOB ever to grace the intertubes. He'll get banned and come back under a different name in a while. He's less interesting than your average street-corner schizophrenic.

There are quite a few things in this article I'd like to point out that are wrong or could be viewed another way:

1) The term "war on terror" did not give bin Laden a loftier status; the media gave him a loftier status by making the phrase "war on terror" bigger than it needed to be.

2) "Axis of Evil" is definitely an appropriate category for Iran to be placed in. Last time I checked, US has not had diplomatic relations with Iran since 1980...hardly Bush's fault right? Also, as seen lately, Iran is now in bed with Venezuela, trading chemical parts oddly labeled as "tractor parts" on the outside of the crates, meaning they're up to no good and further validating the Axis of Evil title.

3) The article mentions WikiLeaks and how the leaked documents proved waterboarding. I'm not arguing against that at all. But this article strangely omits the documents that proved numerous weapons caches were found containing traces of chemical weapons (to include mustard agents)...funny how the article failed to mention that at all. Don't believe me? It's on Global Security Newswire titled "Iraq War Logs Cite Continued WMD Concerns" dated 25 Oct 2010.

4) I'm not sure how Bush could sabotage peace in the Middle East when there was no peace to begin with.

5) If Obama can blame Bush for all his problems, isn't it only fair that Bush should blame Clinton for allowing 9/11 to happen? Sure it happened on Bush's watch, but with Clinton majorly downsizing the military in the 90s, we showed the rest of the world that we weren't worried about an outside attack and basically allowed terrorists into this country freely where they could plan the attack that ended up happening after Bush took office. I'm not saying this is the right answer, but if Bush is Obama's Eve, then Clinton would be the serpent.

Just offering a different vantage point; it's open for debate...I'd love to hear what others think!

This is a great list Steve, and I especially appreciate how you didn't miss the bad decisions before Iraq. Because they fade into the background in retrospect, but boy howdy there were a lot of them. Bush foreign policy was a disaster almost from day one.

I'd also add the very dangerous saber-rattinling with China and Russia in the early days of the administration.

I traveled to Italy in 1999 and went back in 2001. It was amazing what a sea-change had happened in perceptions of Americans in those two years - it went from very welcoming to off the charts suspicion of American motives.

I remember a slightly tipsy housewife spent a half hour haranguing me about how Bush wanted to bomb everyone, one night in a Roman Chinese restaurant. Keep in mind this was *April* of 2001.

Good work for pulling that out, Prof. Walt.

Is it just coincidence or was 911 an inside job?

We needed to setup camps in afganistan to protect opium production. We, also needed to secure our shares of middle eastern oil. There was no way congress was going to allow bush to send troops to protect oil and drugs.

Oil and Pharmaceuticals are hands down, the two largest industries in this country. They are the driving forces behind our economy. Without these two supplys we would immediately go into depression.

We also have a tyrannical regime in this country that would like to see all forms of liberty stripped from the great people in this nation and I remember watching a set of events happen very quickly that shook the foundations of freedom in america.

In the aftermath of 911, congress agreed to declare war against a stereotype of person rather than against another country which has a militia to fight against. Instead we have allowed congress to declare war against the idea of non-compliance with government.

The US Patriot Act was introduced and signed into law immediately. This Act loosely defines terrorism as an anti-government idea or thought. It makes it a capitol crime to disagree with the government. For which, such suspects may be detained under the laws of treason. Which allows for capitol punishment to be carried out without the requirement for trial.

Broken down, it means that we have given the go ahead for the government to legally murder anyone who has a harmful thought towards it!

This thing was passed like a week after 911 nearly 2,000 pages of legal bs. I wonder how carefully that was thought through? As its name implies it forces our allegiance to all whims and wants of the current US government.

I think it follows the process of building wealth quite closely. First you want to think of a catastrophe that nobody knows how to fix, except for you. Build the solution the the problem and have it mass produced and ready for consumption. Create the catastrophe and make sure it cannot be linked back to you. Advertise the solution to the catastrophe and collect your payday.

So, I think Bush or someone else who stands to profit from our invasions into afganistan and iraq. US Pharmaceutical companies have benifited greatly by having the US Military in Afgan protecting their poppy fields. US Oil companies have profited tremendously from our invasion of iraq.

The New World Order is gaining lots of speed now that they can arrest and put to death anyone who disagrees with our muslim leader, Obama.

This is a pure O/Abamanation I tell you. We don't need drugs, just tell the FDA to stop raiding and shutting down companies that try to promote natural healing products and our health problems would be solved. We don't need oil, just goto Free Energy Options to learn how to convert your car to run on water.

If the link above didn't display:

[http]://[free-renewable-energy.blogspot.com]

One of the corollaries to the Iraq debacle is that Bush pretty much abandoned the effort in Afghanistan from 2003-2008 -- which allowed the Taliban plenty of breathing room to regroup and establish the poppy trade. According to the Stiglitz-Bilmes research, the US spent more than four times as much money, and sent five times as many troops, to Iraq as it did to Afghanistan during this period. We therefore had an opportunity to get things under control in Afghanistan and we just completely botched it by getting diverted into Iraq. Think how many young people have been killed or maimed in Afghanistan during the past year who probably would never have got stuck there if Bush hadn't made this truly bad choice.

One might wonder whether there actually is a US Foreign Policy or whether we simply employ the phrase to label what happens with US activities overseas, as if these happenings are somehow part of an orchestrated plan. A lot of things are done by people simply because they can be and it is not within the US psyche to do as little as possible. The Corinthians accused the Athenians of the same predilection, saying they were incapable of living in peace or letting anyone else do so either.

On the other hand, the whole thing would become clearer and the record of people like Bush so much easier to evaluate positively if The Department of Defense were to be renamed The Department of War and given oversight of arms sales which, after all, are an important part of US commercial activity and you can’t really make arms sales into a world wallowing in wishy-washy peace. It is only while the objective is assumed to be Peace that the whole thing is incomprehensible, but redefine the objective as War and Bush rises to glory like a Phoenix.

Walt "As Richard Perle -- a central member of the neocon team himself -- later told the New Yorker's George Packer, "if Bush had staffed his administration with a group of people selected by Brent Scowcroft and Jim Baker ... Then it could have been different, because they would not have carried into it the ideas that the people who wound up in important positions brought."

Tens of thousands (650,000 according to the Lancet in 2006 of Iraqi people are dead, injured and millions displaced and not one person has been held accountable.

President Clinton lies under oath about a b job = impeachment
President Bush , VP Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Condi "mushroom cloud"Rice , Douglas Feith, Hadley, etc create, cherry pick and disseminate false pre war intelligence... = tens of thousands possibly hundreds of thousands dead and no accountability. Pathetic and criminal.

Stephen Walt. Can you explain why the recently released Pentagon Report that reported 77,000 dead in Iraq as a direct result of the invasion. Reports these deaths happening starting in 2004 and ending in 2008 as if no Iraqi people were killed in 2003 or after 2008. What is up with these huge differences in numbers.?

I voted twice for Bush because the Democratic Party's candidates wanted to register handgun owners. (I saw what happened after 1936, when Germany required the registration of Jews.)

And no, we neither register automobile owners nor license automobile drivers -- as long as they only drive on private property. A similarly accessible (i.e. not "needs based") system of optional registration and licensing that would allow us to carry loaded guns in public for self-defense in all fifty states and many foreign countries would be a welcome improvement over the current patchwork system.

Bush made many mistakes but his legacy will always be the resurrection of the individual right to keep and bear arms, without which all our other rights are nothing more than good intentions.

Excellent hindsight.

If only for #8 "Iraq", George W. Bush should have killed himself by now....

It’s so ironic that the war on terrorism cost the US 1 trillion dollars, and the financial collapse in 2008 cost the US trillions of dollars. Maybe this 1 trillion dollars would help in this collapse.
I think most of these points wasn’t mistakes. These decisions are meant to be. Especially #12. And most of these points are a natural result for the first two points.
And the reasons for the catastrophic mistakes that made by bush’s administration, is the US has a schizophrenia. Because US must put an American foreign policy that suits Israel not the US.
And in defense of bush, we must know that he wasn’t the one who took these decisions, it was Israel and its lobby. and for sure, I think, Obama will do the same, but maybe he wouldn't make another war.

What a great summation of Bush's disaster years! I guess, that's why I keep coming back to learn from Prof. Walt here.

Just one nit. Prof. Walt writes: "And while Iran faced economic sanctions and the threat of military force, India refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or open all of its nuclear facilities to outside inspections -- and still obtained a generous new nuclear cooperation agreement."

India would have refused to sign the NPT regardless. It is a major power with great upside and, like China, would not kow-tow to anyone on matters of its national security. So, I think the Indian example does not belong in this para.

Overall, I believe Prof. Walt is consistently right on the money on issues he writes about. I wish other prominent American academics would take his lead and call a 'spade a spade' even if that means being vilified by vested interests.

Thank you Professor Walt!

As Bush said in his interview on NBC, "its the nature of the job" people will talk all sorts of things about you. Professor Walt, I believe you and the former President have different ideologies. As for your 14 points on his 14 chapters, you have separated the policies and discussed them one by one. However, if you take pre-Bush era and 9/11 and post-9/11, the image will turn out to be totally different; as Bush argued at the end of the interview, that people will judge him as a successor or failure in the years to come. Thus only a comprehensive historical analysis will show the realism in action during the Bush era. Prof. Walt, America was under attack on 9/11 and a harsh response was necessary. I believe Bush administration's response wasn't harsh enough to make fast gains. However, all the policies successfully eradicated terrorism from the United States and created new markets for all the grudge and violence harbored by terrorism around the world. Afghanistan and Iraq are prime examples of this and as long as the battles are not in the United States, the US will lead the world. Finally, regarding the Hamas majority Gaza, Bush didn't accept the results since Hamas is not a political party but a militia oppressing an already fragile population. Of course, Iran is the major reason why Hamas today operates in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon and they will probably do so as long as you have the Islamic regime in Iran.
Although you correctly argue on the financial re-percussion resulting from the war on terrorism, however, the recession was about to happen sooner or later as a result of the productive revolution of China, India, Pakistan and Brazil.
As an American I would prefer serving the American interest first and then respect, honor and engage with different regimes in the world.

The useless SORT treaty w/ Russia

"Tens of thousands (650,000 according to the Lancet in 2006 of Iraqi people are dead, injured and millions displaced and not one person has been held accountable."

Lancet is not a medical magazine, contrary to a poster here who styles himself an "expert" in these matters. The official UN count of civilian & military dead & injured is under 100,000 and no number of lies by Global Warming hoaxers or others of that ilk on the lying left will change that fact.

Lancet has a Trotskyite political leaning, as opposed to the usual crazed-Brit "socialism-in-one-country" of Stalin. Wouldn't be surprised to see gulags sprout in the Midlands if the Lancet editors had their way.

George W. Bush was a pitiful "little corporal".

1st) there's no human(itarian) explanation for the use of torture after Genevra
2nd) Mr Inboden (http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/11/09/in_response_to_steve_walt
strategically didn't mention it.
----------
For all Bush-unconditionally-defenders:
Stop playing the 'don't talk about my President' role;
You're smarter than that.

Bushco set Obama up to be the first president to 'lose' a war. And what right-thinking President would want that singular 'honor'?

Just like Nixon inheriting Mr. Johnson's little east asian problem, after getting elected to do something about it, chose to out-Johnson Johnson and double, or triple down on all bets. He spent his first term 'warring' about it and most of his second finding a way to weasel out with 'peace' and 'honor'. The Viets of course, like they would have done anyway at far less cost, looked after themselves.

So the American plan continues in action and if Obama's on the ball he's looking fo a way out, too. difference is the military facing Nixon were a thoroughly discredited bunch, while Obama's 'Praetorians' continue to rule the roost. and Obama has no Kissinger to do his dirty washing. We'll just have to see what 'loser' gets elected next, for this all, too, will pass.

Was Bush bad or good, in any case that was experience for America and Americans. Everything is relative in our life. And there were reasons why did people elected him for the second time! custom essaysWith going time it’s easier to say what was bad and what was good, so let’s see what people would say about him in 10-15 years.

Even in the United States, there are still people who don't follow Glenn Beck, George W. Bush, and Sarah Palin.

Why do we even bother listening to these capitalist fools like George Bush?

Individual wealth is evil. Collective wealth is the only virtue, social justice is the destination and Barack is the shepherd leading us down that path. We must remove the barriers to equality created by capitalism and embrace the righteousness of socialism.

Vote Democrat! Vote Union!

I think we get it, by now, that people have issues with Bush's 8 years in office. Why beat a dead horse? He's left office, he's publishing a book, let's leave the man alone and stop ridiculing his presidency when the current sitting President has the Gulf Oil spill, national debt, China, and a whole host of other problems to deal with.

To keep returning to blame Bush for the current problems seems myopic. Yes, he made some mistakes, but hasn't Obama made his share of mistakes as well?

I think the problem with academic viewpoints is that they give paper opinions and while there are points of reality in these opinions I think that a lot of academics fail to remember that we're human beings working with flawed and limited tools. Show me a government that functions perfectly, without flaw, and I'll retract any and all opinions.

Anyone who sought tatil challenges to the Iraq WMD intel had ample evidence filmcin of serious questions. If one reporter had reiterated the gazeteler questions Show me a klip izle government that functions perfectly

I WANT TO KNOW WHY WE JUST CANT SEND ARE MEN AN WEMAN HOME AN NEVER LOOK BACK AGAIN. WHY CANT WE JUST SETTLE THIS STUPID WAR. TO MANY OF OUR LOVED ONES HAS LEFT THERE LOVED ONES BEHIND BECAUSE OF THIS STUPID WAR. I MEAN COME ON WHY CANT EVERYONE GROW UP AN LIVE THERE LIFES AN LEAVE US ALONE AN STOP KILLING EACH OTHER VIOLANCE IS NOT THE ANSWER TO EVERYTHING. JUST GROW THE HECK UP AN MOVE ON WITH YOUR LIFE. LIVE THE WAY YOU WANT AN THATS LIFE IS NOT FIGHTING AN KILLING. I WANT TO KNOW HOW MANY OF YOU OUT THERE WOULD DIE JUST TO HAVE YOUR KIDS BACK THE WAY THE IRAQI'S WOULD. HOW WOULD YOU ALL FEEL IF SOMEONE WAS KILLING YOUR KIDS. I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO KNOW HOW WOULD YOU FEEL.

now its time for iran