Historians Rate George W. Bush a “Failure”

[jbg]

Erm... There was no Al Qaida in Iraq until Bush and Cheney went in and turned the place into a no man's land.

***********

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.

Yes, a psychopath who said he had WMD's. Even if he was lying, given his financial resources he needed to be taken seriously.

It's sort of like the fate of someone who goes into Pearson International Airport and jokes about having a bomb or a gun. That person may wind up being shot or at the very least arrested by airport security even if he's jesting.

[eyeball]

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.

Okay, that sounds like a good opening statement for the next US president to make at a global truth and reconciliation process.

I can hardly wait to see what Britain's story will be.

[bush_cheney2004]

...I can hardly wait to see what Britain's story will be.

Will that cover Canada too? HMCS Iroquois deploys to the Arabian Sea.....

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...0419?hub=Canada

[jazzer]

1 of 110?

28 of 100?

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

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

Sorry you have trouble with comprehension. I'll try this again. The majority of those polled think Bush is the worst President ever. And the 28 out of a 100 are those who approve of Bush, or 72% of Americans think Bush is taking the US on a wrong track. There, simple enough?

[bush_cheney2004]

Looks like Dubya will be just fine as far as history goes...time is a great disinfectant for bias on either side of the political spectrum. Lots of action on his watch for both domestic and foreign policy, economy , Supreme Court appointments, etc.

He is also a two term war president which keeps him off the bottom of the list as a given.

I figure he will end up in the middle of the pack at about #24, not too different from rankings at Wiki for 2002:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_ra...ates_Presidents

[jazzer]

Looks like Dubya will be just fine as far as history goes...time is a great disinfectant for bias on either side of the political spectrum. Lots of action on his watch for both domestic and foreign policy, economy , Supreme Court appointments, etc.

He is also a two term war president which keeps him off the bottom of the list as a given.

I figure he will end up in the middle of the pack at about #24, not too different from rankings at Wiki for 2002:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_ra...ates_Presidents

Did you read the whole article BC? If you did I'm surprised you never mentioned the results of polls conducted by the following:C-Span, ABC, Rasmassen Report, Washington College, Quanipiac University, and USA today/Gallup.

Actually, he has consistenly been near the bottom for the bulk of his presidency.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Actually, he has consistenly been near the bottom for the bulk of his presidency.

Such short term optics also tells as that the US Congress is ranked even lower for the same period. History will integrate his decisions and long term impact into such rankings. As another member noted, Abraham Lincoln is consistently ranked #1.

Frankly, President Bush's disinterest in how he will be perceived now is a positive quality, not unlike Harry Truman.

[Topaz]

Looks like Dubya will be just fine as far as history goes...time is a great disinfectant for bias on either side of the political spectrum. Lots of action on his watch for both domestic and foreign policy, economy , Supreme Court appointments, etc.

He is also a two term war president which keeps him off the bottom of the list as a given.

I figure he will end up in the middle of the pack at about #24, not too different from rankings at Wiki for 2002:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_ra...ates_Presidents

The only reason GW was elected the second time was the election software on the voting machine aloud him to win. I bet if the US voter had use pen to mark a X he wouldn't be in! GW's whole presidency has been nothing but lies and cheney is probably a bigger liar than GW!!

[bush_cheney2004]

The only reason GW was elected the second time was the election software on the voting machine aloud him to win. I bet if the US voter had use pen to mark a X he wouldn't be in! GW's whole presidency has been nothing but lies and cheney is probably a bigger liar than GW!!

Nonsense.....many US voters did use a pen to fill in choices for optical scanners or manual counts. Marking an "X" is obsolete and only a part of your vivid imagination. President Bush was re-elected in 2004, and it is still wonderful to gloat about it.

[eyeball]

Will that cover Canada too? HMCS Iroquois deploys to the Arabian Sea.....

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...0419?hub=Canada

No, why should it? Canada will have to account for its complicity just like everyone else.

You actually are George Bush aren't you? Shouldn't you be boning up on the latest intelligence report or something?

[bush_cheney2004]

No, why should it? Canada will have to account for its complicity just like everyone else.

No it won't....didn't even do it for complicity in South Africa.

You actually are George Bush aren't you? Shouldn't you be boning up on the latest intelligence report or something?

No...I prefer to wing it.

[jbg]

Okay, that sounds like a good opening statement for the next US president to make at a global truth and reconciliation process.

I can hardly wait to see what Britain's story will be.

Britain's story (and the truth) will be that it emerged from WW II flat broke and could not afford to keep the colonies any longer, so it dumped them on the "world" (read United Nations, really read US Treasury).

[jbg]

The only reason GW was elected the second time was the election software on the voting machine aloud him to win. I bet if the US voter had use pen to mark a X he wouldn't be in! GW's whole presidency has been nothing but lies and cheney is probably a bigger liar than GW!!

Let's get one thing clear; under the rules of US elections Bush won both elections. We do not, quite on purpose, make the popular vote winner automatically the winner of a US election.

As to the recitation of the Wikipedia "ranking" of Presidents, one has to read the bios of the Presidents at the bottom of the heap to recognize that there is no way, except under vivid hallucination, that Bush is at the bottom of the heap. Presidents Pierce and Harding were hard-drinking alchoholics that did little. Pierce, Buchanan and Fillmore were President during the era that the US was falling apart as a union, and I have my doubts that even a skillful leader could have brought about a different result. Abe Lincoln did; through battle.

Frankly, what upsets many about Bush is the fact that his actions (whether successes or not is to be judged by subsequent events and history) revolved around matters military, in an era when the mass media and academia is devoted to the idea that everything can be negotiated. As usual, mass media and academia, as well as generals, fight the last war. While an argument can be made that pre-Hitler Germany's legitimate economic, language and territorial interests should have been negotiated out, talking to radical Islam is about as useful as talking to Hitler would have been. Bush, unlike the Presidents at the bottom of the heap, makes decisions. That in itself should be enough to put him in the middle. I personally would rank him with Truman, Wilson and other middle Presidents, not at the top with Washington, Lincoln, (Ted) Roosvelt or Jefferson.

[bush_cheney2004]

Let's get one thing clear; under the rules of US elections Bush won both elections. We do not, quite on purpose, make the popular vote winner automatically the winner of a US election.

Indeed, many Americans don't even know this, let alone other nationals.

As to the recitation of the Wikipedia "ranking" of Presidents, one has to read the bios of the Presidents at the bottom of the heap to recognize that there is no way, except under vivid hallucination, that Bush is at the bottom of the heap. Presidents Pierce and Harding were hard-drinking alchoholics that did little. Pierce, Buchanan and Fillmore were President during the era that the US was falling apart as a union, and I have my doubts that even a skillful leader could have brought about a different result. Abe Lincoln did; through battle.

Well, I guess hallucination isn't illegal. Fortunately, time will provide the proper perspective and reference datum.

Bush, unlike the Presidents at the bottom of the heap, makes decisions. That in itself should be enough to put him in the middle. I personally would rank him with Truman, Wilson and other middle Presidents, not at the top with Washington, Lincoln, (Ted) Roosvelt or Jefferson.

Very much like Truman in action and demeanor...."Buck stops here".

[jazzer]

As to the recitation of the Wikipedia "ranking" of Presidents, one has to read the bios of the Presidents at the bottom of the heap to recognize that there is no way, except under vivid hallucination, that Bush is at the bottom of the heap.

I guess you missed my post where I cited 6 other polls putting Bush way down near the bottom. At any rate, these are your people answering the polls. I tend to go with what the bulk of your nation's opinions of your head honcho.

[HisSelf]

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?

We're all part of the big American family? A new take on who's your daddy I suppose. W may be your daddy, August1991, to most of us (according to just about every poll taken in the past year), he's just crazy old uncle George.

[bush_cheney2004]

I guess you missed my post where I cited 6 other polls putting Bush way down near the bottom. At any rate, these are your people answering the polls. I tend to go with what the bulk of your nation's opinions of your head honcho.

Did you include the poll from November 2004?

[Guest American Woman]

Did you include the poll from November 2004?

Would this be the one you're referring to?

In early 2004, an informal survey of 415 historians conducted by the nonpartisan History News Network found that eighty-one percent considered the Bush administration a "failure."

[jazzer]

Did you include the poll from November 2004?

I'm not going to search for every single poll, but by all means post your little ditty. It's only be outweighed by the vast majority of major pollers.

[jazzer]

Would this be the one you're referring to?

In early 2004, an informal survey of 415 historians conducted by the nonpartisan History News Network found that eighty-one percent considered the Bush administration a "failure."

Good find, but the problem is the right wing will always label Historians that don't agree with their agendas as left wing, thereby voiding most intelligent PhD Historians.

[bush_cheney2004]

Good find, but the problem is the right wing will always label Historians that don't agree with their agendas as left wing, thereby voiding most intelligent PhD Historians.

Because, brace yourself...they are irrelvant. President Bush prevailed as quite a success in the only poll that matters. Hmmm...let's see...what would he rather have....the kind blessings of "PhD Historians" or another term in office as POTUS.

Those who can....do....those who can't...become "PhD Historians".

[jazzer]

Because, brace yourself...they are irrelvant. President Bush prevailed as quite a success in the only poll that matters. Hmmm...let's see...what would he rather have....the kind blessings of "PhD Historians" or another term in office as POTUS.

Those who can....do....those who can't...become "PhD Historians".

Well we all know that if the majority of Historians provided polls that showed a positive Bush approval, you'd probably claim the Historians were right wing.

[bush_cheney2004]

Well we all know that if the majority of Historians provided polls that showed a positive Bush approval, you'd probably claim the Historians were right wing.

No, and to demonstrate my point, President Bush enjoyed lopsided approval ratings in 2001. So from either vantage point, they were/are irrelevant except as grist for the political mill. Here is a composite of all poll ratings through 2007....at which point shall we declare him a "failure"...when re-elected?

http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm

[Moonlight Graham]

Because, brace yourself...they are irrelvant. President Bush prevailed as quite a success in the only poll that matters. Hmmm...let's see...what would he rather have....the kind blessings of "PhD Historians" or another term in office as POTUS.

That was almost 4 years ago. It would be interesting to see a poll asking whether those who voted for Bush in 2004 regret voting for him? The fact that Bush got 2 terms doesn't mean that he has served them well.

Here's a very neat site, which lists a heap of different Bush approval rating polls from seemingly all major media outlets and pollsters, going back all the way to late 2005: http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

The latest April 2008 polls from Newsweek, AP-Ipsos, and Gallup all have Bush at a 28% approval rating. That pretty much says it all.

Bush is certainly going to go down in the books as a failure, but as some have said its too early to pass final judgement on his legacy. But Bush would need a Texas-sized miracle for his legacy to turn around into the "success" category. They'd have to discover a giant pit of nukes buried in Iraq with U.S. cities marked on them.

[bush_cheney2004]

...The latest April 2008 polls from Newsweek, AP-Ipsos, and Gallup all have Bush at a 28% approval rating. That pretty much says it all.

Using such logic, the US Congress is an even larger failure, and George Bush has done no worse than current media darling and former President Carter.

Approval ratings do not necessarily reflect success or failure....just ask Harry Truman. This same warped sentiment was echoed during Ronald Reagan's term, and now he is in the top ten. I specifically remember a Gil Scott Heron tune/lyrics in the early 1980's that lambasted Reagan just like the "geniuses" of today.

Edited April 21, 2008 by bush_cheney2004