Historians Rate George W. Bush a “Failure”

[jazzer]

I guess we don't have to wait for the history books to confirm the obvious. link

[Regulus de Leo]

Too early for that.

[August1991]

I guess we don't have to wait for the history books to confirm the obvious. link

Here's a link to the original article: History News Network

And here's a counterpoint:

Here we go again. We are engaged in another exercise in instant history, in the form of a poll of opinion in which historians assume the role of soothsayers, predicting the future judgment of the profession on the Bush presidency. This is a follow-up poll to one from 2004 that Robert S. McElvaine reported on here on HNN in an August 2005 essay.

The current poll’s respondents (like those of the earlier poll) are acting as soothsayers because the history profession has not yet had the opportunity to engage the practices of valid historical scholarship. Valid historical scholarship requires us to do lots of things which require time, and especially, the passage of time.

...

The historians responding to the poll (perhaps with a handful of exceptions) have not done any actual research on the Bush presidency. How then can they possibly offer an historical assessment? They can’t. But what they can do is offer their own political opinions, under the guise of historical judgments.

Link

IOW, the only thing that this exercise proves is that most US history professors are left wing. Well, I must say that I am underwhlemed by that discovery.

Indeed, if you read the article, you'll discover that the same history professors also give high ratings to Roosevelt and very low ratings to Reagan.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Indeed, if you read the article, you'll discover that the same history professors also give high ratings to Roosevelt and very low ratings to Reagan.

Agreed...so called historians are probably the worst of the lot who cannot do, so they teach.

[margrace]

There are none so blind as he who will not see.

[jazzer]

IOW, the only thing that this exercise proves is that most US history professors are left wing.

Well, apparently 81% of the American public , "according to a recent New York Times poll, believe Bush has taken the country on the wrong track." Even the Pew Research Centre sites an approval rating of 28%. I don't think die hard Republicans would respond negatively in those kinds of polls, hence either the majority of responders are left wing or Bush is clearly in the lower tier of Presidents. In regards to the original poll I linked to, it was conducted by History New Network itself. Larry Dewitt is the only historian to speak out against the poll that I know of. So it's his opinion against the majority of 109 other historians.

Edited April 17, 2008 by jazzer

[jazzer]

IOW, the only thing that this exercise proves is that most US history professors are left wing. Well, I must say that I am underwhlemed by that discovery.

Indeed, if you read the article, you'll discover that the same history professors also give high ratings to Roosevelt and very low ratings to Reagan.

These "left wing" historians are pretty much in line with the American public. Here's a few figures that help to back up their opinions, particularly in regards to the U.S. economy:

link

Edited April 17, 2008 by jazzer

[sharkman]

These "left wing" historians are pretty much in line with the American public. Here's a few figures that help to back up their opinions, particularly in regards to the U.S. economy:

link

The historians opinion of Reagan in spite of his bringing the country back from the brink under Carter and causing the end of the cold war shows their inability to think objectively.

Bush has had the most difficult time to serve under since WWII. His two goals of stopping attacks on American soil and regime change in Iraq are both successful. That he has a low approval rating just shows Americans hate being at war. Big deal. If he had done the Clinton Response and simply lobbed cruise missiles at Afghanistan and Iraq and kept Americans out of war, he'd have a much higher rating today.

On the other hand, maybe not since there would have been many more Americans dead by now(since many more attacks on American soil would have then occurred) than the 4000 soldiers in Iraq, and the resulting chaos within their own borders would have started a depression by now.

[noahbody]

Bush has had the most difficult time to serve under since WWII. His two goals of stopping attacks on American soil and regime change in Iraq are both successful.

America had the sympathy of the majority of the world after 911. Going into Iraq was the best thing Bush could have done to help the enemy and put the lives of troops and citizens in danger. Assuming attacks on American soil will not occur is naive.

The U.S. would have been better off to elect Jar Jar Binks.

Edited April 18, 2008 by noahbody

[bush_cheney2004]

America had the sympathy of the majority of the world after 911. Going into Iraq was the best thing Bush could have done to help the enemy and put the lives of troops and citizens in danger. Assuming attacks on American soil will not occur is niave.

The US did not get to be lone superpower by soliciting for or caring about the world's sympathy. Projecting such a Canadian value ("oh, please love us") to the USA is even more naive.

[HisSelf]

Bush has had the most difficult time to serve under since WWII. His two goals of stopping attacks on American soil and regime change in Iraq are both successful. That he has a low approval rating just shows Americans hate being at war. Big deal. If he had done the Clinton Response and simply lobbed cruise missiles at Afghanistan and Iraq and kept Americans out of war, he'd have a much higher rating today.

Just because he set a goal and achieved it does not make him a good president. Regime change in Iraq (i.e. Civil War in Iraq) was a stupid thing to do. Afghanistan can hardly be said to be secured.

On top of this, he has abrogated a lot of the "values" he says he is defending. The travesty of justice done in the Khadr case shows what happens when you suspend the rule of law and put suspects in the hands of thugs. The guy Khadr is supposed to have killed was apparently killed by friendly fire and Khadr was put in Gitmo just because he happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. What is doubly pathetic is that our own government raised nary a peep, while the Brits were getting their people out of Gitmo and brought home for trial.

Bush has been a complete failure. Thank heavens we had a Prime Minister who was smart enough to say no.

[bush_cheney2004]

Just because he set a goal and achieved it does not make him a good president. Regime change in Iraq (i.e. Civil War in Iraq) was a stupid thing to do. Afghanistan can hardly be said to be secured.

Regime change in Iraq was the American goal (and public law) long before President Bush took office in 2001. Why doesn't Canada have Afghanistan secured yet?

On top of this, he has abrogated a lot of the "values" he says he is defending. The travesty of justice done in the Khadr case shows what happens when you suspend the rule of law and put suspects in the hands of thugs. The guy Khadr is supposed to have killed was apparently killed by friendly fire and Khadr was put in Gitmo just because he happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. What is doubly pathetic is that our own government raised nary a peep, while the Brits were getting their people out of Gitmo and brought home for trial.

Khadr is an unlawful combatant. Want to play soldier? Pay the price.

Bush has been a complete failure. Thank heavens we had a Prime Minister who was smart enough to say no.

He had to say no....Canada was all tapped out in Afghanistan.

[sharkman]

America had the sympathy of the majority of the world after 911. Going into Iraq was the best thing Bush could have done to help the enemy and put the lives of troops and citizens in danger. Assuming attacks on American soil will not occur is naive.

The U.S. would have been better off to elect Jar Jar Binks.

I was assuming attacks on american soil would occur. There is proof such attacks were and continue to be plotted. But they haven't been able to bring an act of terrorism to U.S. soil since Sept. 11, 2001. They've been successful in Spain, England and other places, but not the U.S. Belittle that if you want but it's a huge achievement.

Surrendering to Osama would have been the best thing to help the enemy. Hunting his organization down and catching dozens of his inner circle, freezing his assets, and keeping him on the run is actually a good thing regardless of the nonsense you hear from the MSM and liberal schools of thought.

Iraq is now one more place where terrorists are not safe and will be Bush's greatest success. I only hope they can catch Osama before his term is up.

[noahbody]

Regime change in Iraq was the American goal (and public law) long before President Bush took office in 2001. Why doesn't Canada have Afghanistan secured yet?

Because Bush went into Iraq.

[bush_cheney2004]

Because Bush went into Iraq.

But Canada didn't, so why weren't all available Canadian resources dedicated to the noble effort in Afghanistan to show the warmonger Americans how it should be done? IIRC, they didn't even show up in numbers until February 2002, and left the mighty CF-18s at home!

For this, I think history will judge PM Chretiem as a total failure (besides AdScam).

[HisSelf]

Iraq is now one more place where terrorists are not safe and will be Bush's greatest success. I only hope they can catch Osama before his term is up.

Erm... There was no Al Qaida in Iraq until Bush and Cheney went in and turned the place into a no man's land. Bin Laden was on record saying he despised Saddam because he was an Arab leader who would not submit his country to Islamic law.

There was never any proof that Iraq was in any way a threat to the US. The country targeted by Iraqi-funded terrorism was Israel - Saddam was giving $25,000 payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. That, and the (largely ineffective) Scud missiles launched against Israel during the first Gulf War gave Israel reason to want Saddam gone.

People think Iraq was a threat to the US because Bush and Cheney kept saying it over and over again. A classic case of repeating something over and over until it is taken for truth even though it is a bald-faced lie. This is the same principle that advertising works on, by the way.

If Saddam had played his cards right, he could have become the Pan-Arab leader that Nasser set out to be. He was simply too much of a psychopath, so when crunch time came he was on his own.

[GostHacked]

People think Iraq was a threat to the US because Bush and Cheney kept saying it over and over again. A classic case of repeating something over and over until it is taken for truth even though it is a bald-faced lie. This is the same principle that advertising works on, by the way.

This is why it is obvious that the corporations who have dealings in Iraq and end up owning some type of 'fair and balanced' news outlet to promote their view and endorse products (any products) that will sell. The repetition in the claims, and many get refuted, the news outlet can change the language so much that you don't know if you are hearing the truth or not.

Brainwashing. Those who see the war for it is, know it is a crime. Those who are zombified, follow whatever the squack box spews at you at high volumes of incorrectness, rendering them mindless drones who will believe any crap that is thrown at them.

[Topaz]

The US did not get to be lone superpower by soliciting for or caring about the world's sympathy. Projecting such a Canadian value ("oh, please love us") to the USA is even more naive.

BC were do you get your ideas from, US TV??? If a poll was taken I`m sure you see most Canadians don`t think they way.

[noahbody]

But Canada didn't, so why weren't all available Canadian resources dedicated to the noble effort in Afghanistan to show the warmonger Americans how it should be done? IIRC, they didn't even show up in numbers until February 2002, and left the mighty CF-18s at home!

For this, I think history will judge PM Chretiem as a total failure (besides AdScam).

I don't think Americans are warmongers. I actually admire the US for the sacrifices they've made over the years when no one else would act. It's just that in this point in time, the US is led by a Texas cowboy of little brain who lacks judgment; loves the most powerful man in the world role, but didn't take notes during Spiderman. It's "with superpowers comes great responsibly" not irresponsibility.

As far as Iraq goes, the case can be made that removing Saddam was the responsible action to take. But how it was done was terribly irresponsible, short-sighted and dishonorable to the country and its allies.

Yes, Canada's military has been a disgrace for years. My dad was in WW2, so believe me I know.

Chretien will be remembered for doing nothing, something he did well for around 12 years.

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't think Americans are warmongers. I actually admire the US for the sacrifices they've made over the years when no one else would act. It's just that in this point in time, the US is led by a Texas cowboy of little brain who lacks judgment; loves the most powerful man in the world role, but didn't take notes during Spiderman. It's "with superpowers comes great responsibly" not irresponsibility.

I rather doubt that George W. Bush likes such a role at all, and in any event, two prime ministers agreed with the plan to take out Saddam once and for all ( a longstanding US goal / policy). Truth is, if it had gone better in the execution and occupation phase, people would be declaring Bush a goddamn genius.

As far as Iraq goes, the case can be made that removing Saddam was the responsible action to take. But how it was done was terribly irresponsible, short-sighted and dishonorable to the country and its allies.

See above....bombing and staving Iraqis to death didn't seem to bother the "allies" before.

Yes, Canada's military has been a disgrace for years. My dad was in WW2, so believe me I know.

Canada's military is not a disgrace...it is remarkable that it can execute missions after being starved for years. PM Harper is addressing those needs, and the rest is raw dedication by service members. My point was with respect to the American adventure in Iraq not being matched by a better allied effort in A-stan if that was truly the issue. Even today there are two tiers of commitment and KIA body count.

Chretien will be remembered for doing nothing, something he did well for around 12 years.

I don't think the Serbs would agree, but the Rwandans sure would!

Edited April 19, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[jazzer]

I don't think Americans are warmongers. I actually admire the US for the sacrifices they've made over the years when no one else would act.

Yeah, gotta love those CIA operations.

[jazzer]

Another bequest from Dubya: If the United States were able to reach its goal of having North Korea surrender its plutonium, substantial concessions would be justified. But senior administration officials say they don't expect that the Kim regime will turn over its plutonium in the coming nine months. That raises the question of why President Bush would allow North Korea to evade full disclosure. Mr. Hill's deal would preserve the negotiating process -- but what does the Bush administration stand to gain from it? All along the risk has been that North Korea would repeatedly extract economic and political favors from the United States without giving up its nuclear arsenal. The latest deal would seem to greatly increase the chance that that will be the legacy of Mr. Bush's diplomacy.

link

[noahbody]

Canada's military is not a disgrace...it is remarkable that it can execute missions after being starved for years. PM Harper is addressing those needs, and the rest is raw dedication by service members. My point was with respect to the American adventure in Iraq not being matched by a better allied effort in A-stan if that was truly the issue. Even today there are two tiers of commitment and KIA body count.

To clarify, by disgrace I'm referring to chronic underfunding and not to service members.

[August1991]

Larry Dewitt is the only historian to speak out against the poll that I know of. So it's his opinion against the majority of 109 other historians.

1 of 110?

Well, apparently 81% of the American public , "according to a recent New York Times poll, believe Bush has taken the country on the wrong track." Even the Pew Research Centre sites an approval rating of 28%.

28 of 100?

Why do I think Leftists choose Liberal Arts because they are bad at math?

Just because he set a goal and achieved it does not make him a good president. Regime change in Iraq (i.e. Civil War in Iraq) was a stupid thing to do. Afghanistan can hardly be said to be secured.

...

Bush has been a complete failure. Thank heavens we had a Prime Minister who was smart enough to say no.

The US has a different role than Canada, and a US president bears a different burden than a Canadian PM.

HisSelf, have you ever had to assume the weight of decisions for your own family? In your family, who do people look to? You?

Edited April 19, 2008 by August1991

[jbg]

I guess we don't have to wait for the history books to confirm the obvious. link

A total hatchet job. The defining event of Bush's presidency was hatched during the Clinton era, the September 11 attacks. FDR would not have been rated a successful President without his pre-WW II domestic accomplishments. Bush never got the chance, really, to have any. The West was precipitated into war, against its will, and Bush did his duty.

What's such a failure about that? Britain decolonized too fast and did not leave behind civil societies. Bush just started the inglorious cleanup job.