History will not be kind to King George.

[Vadatajs]

History vs. George Bush

Of 415 historians who expressed a view of President Bush?s administration to this point as a success or failure, 338 classified it as a failure and 77 as a success. (Moreover, it seems likely that at least eight of those who said it is a success were being sarcastic, since seven said Bush?s presidency is only the best since Clinton?s and one named Millard Fillmore.) Twelve percent of all the historians who responded rate the current presidency the worst in all of American history, not too far behind the 19 percent who see it at this point as an overall success.

Among the cautions that must be raised about the survey is just what ?success? means. Some of the historians rightly pointed out that it would be hard to argue that the Bush presidency has not so far been a political success?or, for that matter that President Bush has not been remarkably successful in achieving his objectives in Congress. But those meanings of success are by no means incompatible with the assessment that the Bush presidency is a disaster. ?His presidency has been remarkably successful,? one historian declared, ?in its pursuit of disastrous policies.? ?I think the Bush administration has been quite successful in achieving its political objectives,? another commented, ?which makes it a disaster for us.?
...

There's much more, including pretty pictures for all the knuckle-draggers here. Some more quotes:

HARDING: ?Oil, money and politics again combine in ways not flattering to the integrity of the office. Both men also have a tendency to mangle the English language yet get their points across to ordinary Americans. [Yet] the comparison does Harding something of a disservice.?

McKINLEY: ?Bush is perhaps the first president [since McKinley] to be entirely in the ?hip pocket? of big business, engage in major external conquest for reasons other than national security, AND be the puppet of his political handler. McKinley had Mark Hanna; Bush has Karl Rove. No wonder McKinley is Rove?s favorite historical president (precedent?).?

LoL, does Harding a disservice...

And then there was this split ballot, comparing the George W. Bush presidencies failures in distinct areas. The George W. Bush presidency is the worst since:

?In terms of economic damage, Reagan.

In terms of imperialism, T Roosevelt.

In terms of dishonesty in government, Nixon.

In terms of affable incompetence, Harding.

In terms of corruption, Grant.

In terms of general lassitude and cluelessness, Coolidge.

In terms of personal dishonesty, Clinton.

In terms of religious arrogance, Wilson.?

 

[Kerouactivist]

interesting perspective

 

[RabidMongoose]

I don't think that's saying history won't be kind to Bush, just that historians don't think that the current administration is very good when evaluating it right now.

 

[ElFenix]

since when did historians judge current events?

 

[Kibbo]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
since when did historians judge current events?

No one would be a better judge. This is why the study of history is important.

That being said, I think that historians would be biased towards overstating things. But the overall thrust is valid.

 

[ReiAyanami]

he's a regular Andrew Jackson. Hallibacon, Texacon, Enwrong.

obviously those historians are terrorists

obviously those historians are unpatriotic

obviously those noble laureates are terrorists

 

[biostud]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
since when did historians judge current events?

As a day passes it turns into history.

 

[nageov3t]

we're talking about George 2, right?

I think it's far too early to tell... his regime is going to be definied by how the Iraq and Afghanistan situations are resolved.

 

[ntdz]

why dont we let the American people decide if it was a success or not...not some stupid partisan historians.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: ntdz
why dont we let the American people decide if it was a success or not...not some stupid partisan historians.

No thanks

 

[Smaug]

His impact can't be judged right now, but in 50 years, hopefully it will be a positive one but after Iraq I am not sure.

 

[Vadatajs]

Originally posted by: ntdz
why dont we let the American people decide if it was a success or not...not some stupid partisan historians.

Anti-intellectualism at it's finest, folks.

That said, historians are in a position to compare the actions of the current president to the actions of past presidents in a level of detail that Joe Sixpack cannot. If you can't see the validity of their opinions in this context, then you're clearly one of the knuckle-draggers I was referring to in the initial post.

 

[biostud]

Originally posted by: Vadatajs

Originally posted by: ntdz
why dont we let the American people decide if it was a success or not...not some stupid partisan historians.

Anti-intellectualism at it's finest, folks.

That said, historians are in a position to compare the actions of the current president to the actions of past presidents in a level of detail that Joe Sixpack cannot.

:beer:

 

[klah]

.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ntdz
why dont we let the American people decide if it was a success or not...not some stupid partisan historians.

The same American people who still think there was a connection between Iraq and 9/11? I'll pass.

 

[Infohawk]

He will be remember as a child in over is head.

and the dangers of the electoral college [\b]

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
He will be remember as a child in over is head.

and the dangers of the electoral college [\b]

Isn't that Electoral College wonderful? Isn't it great to know that the citizens of Wyoming's votes are worth nearly four times that of the ones in California?

 

[Vadatajs]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Infohawk
He will be remember as a child in over is head.

and the dangers of the electoral college [\b]

Isn't that Electoral College wonderful? Isn't it great to know that the citizens of Wyoming's votes are worth nearly four times that of the ones in California?

That's being generous Infohawk, he should be remembered for his "It would be easier if this were a dictatorship..." quip.

 

[fjord]

History will tell the story of a flawed administration indulging in lies, fabrication and distortion in order to proceed with an unnecessary, unprovoked preemptive war.

The policy of Preemption had long been discarded (thank God--during the cold war) as undemocratic, illogical, illegal, stupid and moraly corrupt.

This will be GW Bushes legacy into the future. Even worse--this is his legacy right now.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Vadatajs
History vs. George Bush

Of 415 historians who expressed a view of President Bush?s administration to this point as a success or failure, 338 classified it as a failure and 77 as a success. (Moreover, it seems likely that at least eight of those who said it is a success were being sarcastic, since seven said Bush?s presidency is only the best since Clinton?s and one named Millard Fillmore.) Twelve percent of all the historians who responded rate the current presidency the worst in all of American history, not too far behind the 19 percent who see it at this point as an overall success.

Among the cautions that must be raised about the survey is just what ?success? means. Some of the historians rightly pointed out that it would be hard to argue that the Bush presidency has not so far been a political success?or, for that matter that President Bush has not been remarkably successful in achieving his objectives in Congress. But those meanings of success are by no means incompatible with the assessment that the Bush presidency is a disaster. ?His presidency has been remarkably successful,? one historian declared, ?in its pursuit of disastrous policies.? ?I think the Bush administration has been quite successful in achieving its political objectives,? another commented, ?which makes it a disaster for us.?
...

There's much more, including pretty pictures for all the knuckle-draggers here. Some more quotes:

HARDING: ?Oil, money and politics again combine in ways not flattering to the integrity of the office. Both men also have a tendency to mangle the English language yet get their points across to ordinary Americans. [Yet] the comparison does Harding something of a disservice.?

McKINLEY: ?Bush is perhaps the first president [since McKinley] to be entirely in the ?hip pocket? of big business, engage in major external conquest for reasons other than national security, AND be the puppet of his political handler. McKinley had Mark Hanna; Bush has Karl Rove. No wonder McKinley is Rove?s favorite historical president (precedent?).?

LoL, does Harding a disservice...

And then there was this split ballot, comparing the George W. Bush presidencies failures in distinct areas. The George W. Bush presidency is the worst since:

?In terms of economic damage, Reagan.

In terms of imperialism, T Roosevelt.

In terms of dishonesty in government, Nixon.

In terms of affable incompetence, Harding.

In terms of corruption, Grant.

In terms of general lassitude and cluelessness, Coolidge.

In terms of personal dishonesty, Clinton.

In terms of religious arrogance, Wilson.?

So, Vadatajs, Who are the historians?

 

[Moonbeam]

It is probably a reflection fo the fact that Bush is a complete disaster.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
I don't think that's saying history won't be kind to Bush, just that historians don't think that the current administration is very good when evaluating it right now.

When all the classified documents come out, the historians will be even harder on Bush. That is little comfort to the people who are currently suffering from his ineptness and treachery.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
I don't think that's saying history won't be kind to Bush, just that historians don't think that the current administration is very good when evaluating it right now.

When all the classified documents come out, the historians will be even harder on Bush. That is little comfort to the people who are currently suffering from his ineptness and treachery.

Sure, but that will be in the future. These people are making an evaluation based on right now, not hindsight.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
I don't think that's saying history won't be kind to Bush, just that historians don't think that the current administration is very good when evaluating it right now.

When all the classified documents come out, the historians will be even harder on Bush. That is little comfort to the people who are currently suffering from his ineptness and treachery.

Sure, but that will be in the future. These people are making an evaluation based on right now, not hindsight.

Uh...anyone else see the ridiculousness of that last sentence? :laugh:

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
I don't think that's saying history won't be kind to Bush, just that historians don't think that the current administration is very good when evaluating it right now.

When all the classified documents come out, the historians will be even harder on Bush. That is little comfort to the people who are currently suffering from his ineptness and treachery.

Sure, but that will be in the future. These people are making an evaluation based on right now, not hindsight.

Uh...anyone else see the ridiculousness of that last sentence? :laugh:

OK, I guess I need to clarify...certain events could happen in the future to make Bush look better or even worse....this 'report' is not saying 'History will not be kind to Bush', although most likely it will not be kind to him.

Hopefully even the sheep can understand it.