Historians vs. George W. Bush

[Doomstone]

http://hnn.us/articles/5019.html



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.

...

The past presidencies most commonly linked with the current administration include all of those that are usually rated as the worst in the nation's history: Nixon, Harding, Hoover, Buchanan, Coolidge, Andrew Johnson, Grant, and McKinley. The only president who appeared prominently on both the favorable and unfavorable lists was Ronald Reagan. Forty-seven historians said Bush is the best president since Reagan, while 38 said he is the worst since Reagan. Almost all of the historians who rate the Bush presidency a success are Reagan admirers. Indeed, no other president (leaving aside the presumably mostly tongue-in-cheek mentions of Clinton) was named by more than four of the historians who took a favorable view of the current presidency.

...

The second most common response from historians, trailing only Nixon, was that the current presidency is the worst in American history. A few examples will serve to provide the flavor of such condemnations. "Although previous presidents have led the nation into ill-advised wars, no predecessor managed to turn America into an unprovoked aggressor. No predecessor so thoroughly managed to confirm the impressions of those who already hated America. No predecessor so effectively convinced such a wide range of world opinion that America is an imperialist threat to world peace. I don 't think that you can do much worse than that."

"Bush is horrendous; there is no comparison with previous presidents, most of whom have been bad."

"He is blatantly a puppet for corporate interests, who care only about their own greed and have no sense of civic responsibility or community service. He lies, constantly and often, seemingly without control, and he lied about his invasion into a sovereign country, again for corporate interests; many people have died and been maimed, and that has been lied about too. He grandstands and mugs in a shameful manner, befitting a snake oil salesman, not a statesman. He does not think, process, or speak well, and is emotionally immature due to, among other things, his lack of recovery from substance abuse. The term is "dry drunk". He is an abject embarrassment/pariah overseas; the rest of the world hates him . . . . . He is, by far, the most irresponsible, unethical, inexcusable occupant of our formerly highest office in the land that there has ever been."

"George W. Bush's presidency is the pernicious enemy of American freedom, compassion, and community; of world peace; and of life itself as it has evolved for millennia on large sections of the planet. The worst president ever? Let history judge him."

"This president is unique in his failures."

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."

...

Some voters may judge such assessments to be wrong, but they are assessments informed by historical knowledge and the electorate ought to have them available to take into consideration during this election year.


<center><im

[A.J.]

It's too early to judge Bush's Administration. I'm sure he'll royally fuck-up some more in these next few months.

<img src=http://img40.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Canofsoup15/Sigs/AJinDC-Sig.jpg>

A Skidmark/canofsoup15 production.

Red Sox Nation

[TheMojoPin]

So he's worse than...

In terms of dishonesty in government, Nixon.

Oh, please.

In terms of personal dishonesty, Clinton.

That just seems this way because Clinton so much better a liar.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << December boys got it BAD >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[furie]

It's too early to judge Bush's Administration.


Hush! I said that a year ago in similar thead and got blasted for it. Apparently the past is now.


<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/furie1335/.Pictures/rfsigs/furiefish.jpg" height=100 width=300">


This message was edited by furie on 5-27-04 @ 8:11 PM

[Mike Teacher]

These people wont make the history. If I called myself a scientist, and i dont, i wouldnt be going around saying 'this is how it will be'. thats impossible, if by history we mean something beyond the next-second writing of the E! True Hollywood Story: The Iraq War, that seems to be going on now.

And while a cliche, it seems to work. Who writes the history after all is said and done? The Winners. The Victors.

But all of this is moot, and probably wrong, given Toffler's now optimistic view.

Here today.

Gone later on Today...

<IMG SRC="http://members.aol.com/miketeachr/newsig">

[canofsoup15]

How can you decide if an administration is good or a failure? Anything you do is subjective, your always comparing it to other administrations. Clinton helped the economy significantly (mainly providing jobs and lowering the employment rate) yet the general consensus is that his administration was a failure. Why? Because the man got oral sex. Like Clinton, Bush has done many positive things for this country, but because he started a war he gets shit on. Other presidents didn't do anything for this country, some even hurt it, and more than these two have, yet because they did not do something significantly bad we forget about them. It's ridiculous.

<img src=http://img18.photobucket.com/albums/v53/monster6sixty6/guests/cos_sig.jpg>

<marquee behavior=alternate><Font size="1" Color="blue">
Stuck in believe there is a lie, Promises promise an eye for an eye.
We've got something to reveal, No one can know how we feel.</marquee>

[Yerdaddy]

My doctor once told me if I didn't have surgery I'd lose a testicle. I didn't want to do it, but he was the expert. Who wants to see my scar?

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
Fuck it from behind.

[ADF]

I hear George Bush's memoirs will be entitled, "Me v. Historeeunz: Klash of dee Tietunz"

<center><img src = "http://somesuch.org/sigpics/adfbundt.gif"><br><center> <i><b>blablam!</i></b></center>

[shamus mcfitzy]

Like Clinton, Bush has done many positive things for this country, but because he started a war he gets shit on. Other presidents didn't do anything for this country, some even hurt it, and more than these two have, yet because they did not do something significantly bad we forget about them. It's ridiculous.


now i'm not one to start calling Bush's presidency the worst ever because it IS crazy to do that. And I doubt that these historians are impartial. Also remarkable that of these historians only 3 said Bush was the worst since Carter. That takes a certain "liberalocity" if you will. Also the phrasing of the question "Bush is the worst president since...?" leaves something to be desired I would say. It says something to say that almost 350 historians feel that Bush is failing, but it's not as if these are 350 historians out of the world's only 400.

But really what is more severe than war? What can a US president do that is worse than going into a war that hurts our reputation? And I do in fact think that Bush and Clinton's indiscretions do outweigh those of some presidents that just made the occasional minor mistakes. Clinton I think to a lesser extent (but I can understand a more right wing view of that comparison).

And to be fair to the study, Mojo, Bush is called the most dishonest since Clinton and Nixon ("The George W. Bush presidency is the worst since...")Not more dishonest. So it's intentionally misleading really. Past presidents might've been more dishonest but they came before Nixon. Good times.

This message was edited by shamus mcfitzy on 5-24-04 @ 12:50 AM

[canofsoup15]

I understand what you are saying Shamus. However, you interpretation of the indiscretions was a tad off. I was saying that while these past two presidents have done things that make them seem bad, they have also done alot of good that should outweigh the bad somewhat. However if a president does absoluetly nothing except for bad things, nobody seems to notice. I do understand how starting a war could be potentially bad for an administration.

Basically:
Good + Few major screw ups = Nothing but minor screw ups with nothing good happening.

Maybe I sound rendundant but this is an issue i feel strongly about. I cannot stand people who blindly lash-out against the Bush Administration as though it was Hitler and the Third Reich. Granted that is a little extreme, but I believe we have seen the ads where he is compared to Hitler. How quickly we forget 9/11, the first time in 60 years we had experienced a major attack on our soil. Unlike 1941, this time we were left in the dark, these were high trained arab people that you could not pick out of a line-up. Bush had to go through a gigantic economy crash, as well as pressure on the government to retaliate, and I think it is important that we remember this and cut the poor man some slack I believe that this administration is doing the best it can to make the American people feel save and we should be greatful for that.


<img src=http://img40.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Canofsoup15/Sigs/Bulletsig1.gif>

<marquee behavior=alternate><Font size="1" Color="blue">
Stuck in believe there is a lie, Promises promise an eye for an eye.
We've got something to reveal, No one can know how we feel.</marquee>

[Doomstone]

Looks like they were mostly correct...

[DarkHippie]

<p>Harding gets a bad rep.&nbsp; He may not have even know about the corruption in his cabinet, and he died before he could do anything about it.</p><p>Coolage was a good president.&nbsp; its just that he was unpopular because he was quiet and uncharasmatic.</p><p>Bush is still a fuck up</p>

[Bulldogcakes]

<strong>Mike Teacher</strong> wrote:<br />These people wont make the history. If I called myself a scientist, and i dont, i wouldnt be going around saying 'this is how it will be'. thats impossible, if by history we mean something beyond the next-second writing of the E! True Hollywood Story: The Iraq War, that seems to be going on now. And while a cliche, it seems to work. Who writes the history after all is said and done? The Winners. The Victors. But all of this is moot, and probably wrong, given Toffler's now optimistic view. Here today. Gone later on Today... <img src="http://members.aol.com/miketeachr/newsig" border="0" /> First of all, GROOVY SIG PIC!Next, any decent historian who can see past his/her own bias will tell you that its too soon to tell. Events can occur which change drastically the perception of one president or another. That being said, I also consider Bush to be a failure at this point in time. He hitched his legacy to the Iraq war, and its a mess. BTW-Toffler will also tell you what happens in the White House isn't what changes history, anyway. Washington typically reacts to history, and usually about 20 years after the fact. <p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

<span class=post_edited>This message was edited by Bulldogcakes on 3-18-07 @ 9:45 AM</span>

[foodcourtdruide]

<strong>shamus mcfitzy</strong> wrote:<br />Like Clinton, Bush has done many positive things for this country, but because he started a war he gets shit on. Other presidents didn't do anything for this country, some even hurt it, and more than these two have, yet because they did not do something significantly bad we forget about them. It's ridiculous. now i'm not one to start calling Bush's presidency the worst ever because it IS crazy to do that. And I doubt that these historians are impartial. Also remarkable that of these historians only 3 said Bush was the worst since Carter. That takes a certain &quot;liberalocity&quot; if you will. Also the phrasing of the question &quot;Bush is the worst president since...?&quot; leaves something to be desired I would say. It says something to say that almost 350 historians feel that Bush is failing, but it's not as if these are 350 historians out of the world's only 400. But really what is more severe than war? <strong>What can a US president do that is worse than going into a war that hurts our reputation?</strong> And I do in fact think that Bush and Clinton's indiscretions do outweigh those of some presidents that just made the occasional minor mistakes. Clinton I think to a lesser extent (but I can understand a more right wing view of that comparison). And to be fair to the study, Mojo, Bush is called the most dishonest since Clinton and Nixon (&quot;The George W. Bush presidency is the worst since...&quot;)Not more dishonest. So it's intentionally misleading really. Past presidents might've been more dishonest but they came before Nixon. Good times. This message was edited by shamus mcfitzy on 5-24-04 @ 12:50 AM <p>Compromise our constitution and personal freedoms based on personal ideology... oh wait..</p>

[weekapaugjz]

<p>something as recent as bush's presidency is too recent to be evaluated by &quot;historians&quot;. in many of the history classes (and i have taken many) several of my professors have said it is tough to study anything dealing with history within the last 50 years objectively. this is due to the fact that you have lived through these events and can be skewed by your own biases or perspectives. it is unknown what the actions of the bush presidency could lead to in the next, 10, 20, 30 years. who knows, maybe in 100 years bush could be viewed as one of the best presidents ever. it all depends on how actions taken by the bush presidency affects events in the coming years.</p><p>you may disagree with my observation but i feel statements that bush is the &quot;worst president ever&quot; are knee jerk reactions. i would love to hear what people have to say about my thoughts. ill hang up and listen to your answer... </p>

<span class=post_edited>This message was edited by weekapaugjz on 3-18-07 @ 11:15 PM</span>

[epo]

<p>I'm not impartial about Bush II, but I totally agree with the sentiment that no president can historically be judged for at least 20-30 years.&nbsp; Before that it's just opinion in that moment and time without the policies of that president running their course.&nbsp; </p><p>Plus &quot;worst ever&quot; is way too early of a call.&nbsp; Andrew Johnson is a helluva benchmark to beat.&nbsp; Plus the guy does have 20 months of work left on his historical resume.</p>

[RogerPodacter]

Here's a hypothetical.&nbsp; Lets say that by some miracle, the Iraq war turns out to be a success by the end of his term.&nbsp; Success meaning the government can run itself over there and the Iraqi army can keep the peace.&nbsp; How would the presidency be viewed then?

[Recyclerz]

<strong>weekapaugjz</strong> wrote:<br /><p>something as recent as bush's presidency is too recent to be evaluated by &quot;historians&quot;. in many of the history classes (and i have taken many) several of my professors have said it is tough to study anything dealing with history within the last 50 years objectively. this is due to the fact that you have lived through these events and can be skewed by your own biases or perspectives. it is unknown what the actions of the bush presidency could lead to in the next, 10, 20, 30 years. who knows, maybe in 100 years bush could be viewed as one of the best presidents ever. it all depends on how actions taken by the bush presidency affects events in the coming years.</p><p>you may disagree with my observation but i feel statements that bush is the &quot;worst president ever&quot; are knee jerk reactions. i would love to hear what people have to say about my thoughts. ill hang up and listen to your answer... </p><span class="post_edited">This message was edited by weekapaugjz on 3-18-07 @ 11:15 PM</span> <p>I can agree with weeka's assertions that it is too early to assess (in a real academic way) W's place in history and that calling him the &quot;worst president ever&quot; is a knee jerk reaction.&nbsp; But since that is the way my knee jerks let me explain why I come down in Doomstone's camp.</p><p>The country W inherited was in pretty good shape.&nbsp; True, the tech bubble was starting to burst so the good times were in for a lull, but financially the gov't was in the best shape it had been in for a long time.&nbsp; The good times (IMHO) were due to tough decisions that had been made by his predecessors - his Dad, who had backed out of his &quot;no new taxes&quot; pledge because it was the right thing to do at the time, and Clinton, who did the smartest thing he could have by listening to Robert Rubin on how to (for lack of a better term) manage&nbsp;the economy.&nbsp; Although the business cycle wasn't repealed, the gov't was in a good place to pay down a lot of debt and should have been able to prepare the society for the costs of paying for the Baby Boomer's getting old without everybody else getting financially raped in the process.&nbsp; So what is W's first action out of the box?&nbsp; A tax cut, bigger than the projected surpluses, that is not an across the board &quot;The gov't should get smaller&quot; kind but one that specifically rewards the interests of those who have the most invested capital, or as he (jokingly) called them &quot; The Haves and The Have Mores ...my base.&quot;&nbsp; These cuts, together with his big spending programs, increasingly to connected political outfits offering to &quot;private&quot; government services, have aimed our economy straight at a bridge abutment, which everyone will finally realize we've hit when Social Security starts drawing out money from the Treasury rather than putting more in which should happen in about five years.</p><p>On foreign policy, I won't rehash how we've gotten to where we are; we've all had those discussions before .&nbsp; I would just offer this comparison:&nbsp; the last time we got attacked &quot;out of nowhere&quot; was Pearl Harbor. (I realize there are diffferences in the historical context, but it is the closest analog to 9/11.)&nbsp; Whose stewardship of the country do you think history will judge more favorably, FDR's or W's?</p><p>&nbsp;I am willing to put a couple of bucks on this historical prediction: W's reign will be the commonly recognized time at which the American Empire's decline became apparent to all. This, of course, was historically inevitable but Bush's policy choices put the pedal to the metal in accelerating them.</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

[DonInNC]

<strong>RogerPodacter</strong> wrote:<br />Here's a hypothetical.&nbsp; Lets say that by some miracle, the Iraq war turns out to be a success by the end of his term.&nbsp; Success meaning the government can run itself over there and the Iraqi army can keep the peace.&nbsp; How would the presidency be viewed then? <p>Good question. I don't think that in itself would make&nbsp;it a success. If the war ends the way you described and terrorism disappears or is substantially diminished as a result of the war, then I think history will eventually view him favorably.</p>

[A.J.]

<strong>epo</strong> wrote:<br /><p>Plus &quot;worst ever&quot; is way too early of a call.&nbsp; Andrew Johnson is a helluva benchmark to beat.&nbsp; </p><p>James Buchanan beats Andrew Johnson by a long shot.&nbsp; Andrew Johnson tried to put the nation back together.&nbsp; Buchanan let it fall apart.</p>

[ralphbxny]

<strong>RogerPodacter</strong> wrote:<br />Here's a hypothetical.&nbsp; Lets say that by some miracle, the Iraq war turns out to be a success by the end of his term.&nbsp; Success meaning the government can run itself over there and the Iraqi army can keep the peace.&nbsp; How would the presidency be viewed then? <p>He still lied to get there and get caught. Doesnt change the fact his family and friends&nbsp;made a fortune during the last 6 years while the rest of us got fucked. </p>

[Yerdaddy]

<p>I think history will record Bush as one of the greatest presidents ever. I predict that sometime in 2009 the Republican president will fold Fox &quot;News&quot; into the federal government as the Department of Information and Morality. Press conferences will be broadcast exclusively on Fox and other media organizations will no longer have access to the White House or any other executive branch department. In fact I suspect all journalists will have to register with the DoIM including a loyalty oath and a voter reciept proving they voted for the President. Fox will also be in charge of publishing all textbooks in the nation in a program called &quot;No Child Left of Center.&quot; The President's picture will be required to be hung on every wall, (and I mean every wall. Room has four walls - you hang four pictures!). It will be a crime to criticize the President or the government. Bill O'Reilly will finally be given the authority to send police to your house that he's always claimed he had. Halliburtone will be put in charge of all voting machines and votes will no longer be private. After that everything will take care of itself. </p><p>George W Bush, our third&nbsp;President,&nbsp;will be known, (under pentalty of prison), as the greatest president since Ronald&nbsp;Reagan, our first President, Father of the Greatest Nation and Fearless Leader.</p>

[Bulldogcakes]

<strong>Recyclerz</strong> wrote:<p>So what is W's first action out of the box? A tax cut, bigger than the projected surpluses, that is not an across the board &quot;The gov't should get smaller&quot; kind but one that specifically rewards the interests of those who have the most invested capital, or as he (jokingly) called them &quot; The Haves and The Have Mores ...my base.&quot; These cuts, together with his big spending programs, increasingly to connected political outfits offering to &quot;private&quot; government services, have aimed our economy straight at a bridge abutment, which everyone will finally realize we've hit when Social Security starts drawing out money from the Treasury rather than putting more in which should happen in about five years.</p><p>You know, the Iraq war has been such a mess (along with Katrina, his energy policy and much of the rest of his record) that I forgot how pissed off I was about the way this president has spent. And Yes, I agree with you that to cut taxes and not cut spending is the worst of all worlds. Either you believein Keynes-ian economics and think the Gov't should spend to prop up the ecomony (I generally dont) or you a Milton Friedman type who thinks economics works most efficiently to the ultimate benefit of more when Gov't is least involved (thats me). But this clown wants it both ways, just like his Dad who ran up the biggest deficits in history before W's. This isn't an accident, this is a philosophy at work. Bush see's it in his political interest to cut taxes to please his base, and to spend like crazy to avoid making difficult political decisions and placate some moderates. It may be good politics (he has won 2 elections) but its hideous economics. </p><p>I do give him a temporary pass after 9/11, where some spending was a good idea to prop up the economy and allay fears during a difficult time. But his passs for that ran out for me sometime around 2003. </p>

<span class=post_edited>This message was edited by Bulldogcakes on 3-19-07 @ 8:07 PM</span>

[high fly]

<strong>TheMojoPin</strong> wrote:<br />So he's worse than... In terms of dishonesty in government, Nixon. Oh, please. In terms of personal dishonesty, Clinton. That just seems this way because Clinton so much better a liar <p>&nbsp;</p><p>When it comes to lying, I rank waaay above Clinton all those times where Ronald &quot;Dutch&quot; Reagan said bald-faced lies that went something like,</p><p>&quot;America makes no concessions to terrorists. We make no deals because once you start down that path, there will be no end to it.&quot;</p><p>At the time, he had already delivered ransom in the form of arms to Iran to get hostages freed and was negotiating for more. President &quot;Dutch&quot; told this lie repeatedly on national television. The ramifications for this nation were huge, because Reagan made terrorism a profitable business and the same Hezbollah terrorists Reagan rewarded for kidnapping and murdering hundreds of Americans later trained al Qaeda to blow up large buildings such as the 2 embassy bombings in East Africa in August 1998.</p>

<span class=post_edited>This message was edited by high fly on 3-21-07 @ 11:00 PM</span>

[Midkiff]

<p><font size="2">Stay out of my bush, George!</font></p><p><font size="2">At least that's what the campus bulldykes had on their banner.</font></p>

[Doomstone]

I enjoy bringing this up now and then

[Midkiff]

BUCK FUSH!

[TheMojoPin]

Let's try to avoid random thread resurrections when there's nothing to add.

[Doomstone]

...and Mojo tosses the softball

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/02/plain_talk_by_a_1.html




Our great country has had 43 presidents. Many very good. A few pretty bad. On Presidents Day next Monday, it's appropriate to commemorate them all.

I remember every president since Herbert Hoover, when I was a grade school kid. He was one of the worst. I've personally met every president since Dwight Eisenhower. He was one of the best.

A year ago I criticized Hillary Clinton for saying "this (Bush) administration will go down in history as one of the worst."

"She's wrong," I wrote. Then I rated these five presidents, in this order, as the worst: Andrew Jackson, James Buchanan, Ulysses Grant, Hoover and Richard Nixon. "It's very unlikely Bush can crack that list," I added.

I was wrong. This is my mea culpa. Not only has Bush cracked that list, but he is planted firmly at the top.

The Iraq war, of course, has become Bush's albatross. He and his buddies are great at coining words or slogans. "Bushisms" that will haunt him historically:

"Shock and Awe," early 2003.

"Mission Accomplished," May 1, 2003.

"Stay the Course," June 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006.

"New Strategy," 2007.

Another term historians may weigh critically is "Decider."

Is he just a self-touted decider doing what he thinks right? Or is he an arrogant ruler who doesn't care or consider what the public or Congress believes best for the country?

Despite his play on words and slogans, Bush didn't learn the value or meaning of mea culpa (acknowledgement of an error) during his years at Yale.

Bush admitting his many mistakes on Iraq and ending that fiasco might make many of us forgive, even though we can never forget the terrible toll in lives and dollars.

I 've got more...

[A.J.]

As was pointed out in another thread, Harry Truman left office with an approval rating in the 20% range. His legacy managed to get rehabilitated over time.

It's way too soon to make a call.

[Yerdaddy]

As was pointed out in another thread, Harry Truman left office with an approval rating in the 20% range. His legacy managed to get rehabilitated over time.

It's way too soon to make a call.

Then again, his legacy could get worse.

[cougarjake13]

you know whats scary

we had

bush 88-92
clinton 92-00
gw bush 00-08


possibly another clinton in hillary

then maybe a jeb bush

then maybe chelsea could jump in

then one of the bush twins


im sure theres other bush clintons in the mix but i dont know of them



we could have a 2 family monarchy here

of course im joking here about the kiddies but hilary got a chance and jeb could have a chance

[Yerdaddy]

http://arago4.tnw.utwente.nl/stonedead/movies/holy-grail/thumbnails/09-historian.jpg

"Defeat at Baghdad seemed to have utterly disheartened King Bush. The ferocity of the Sunni taunting took him completely by surprise, and Dubya became convinced that a new strategy was required if the Quest for the Wurr on Turr were to be brought to a successful conclusion. Arthur, having consulted his closest Neocons, decided that they should separate and search for turrists individually. Now, this is what they did — "

[Bulldogcakes]

As was pointed out in another thread, Harry Truman left office with an approval rating in the 20% range. His legacy managed to get rehabilitated over time.

It's way too soon to make a call.

Truman is most fondly remembered for recognizing the State of Israel, and hasn't that just worked out peachy for all involved. Including (unfortunately) us.

BACK TO THE BOTTOM, HARRY!

[scottinnj]

“In terms of economic damage, Reagan."


WOW! Whoever said that-should be taken off the study. Anyone remember how bad the economy was when he took office? That statement should say:

“In terms of economic damage, CARTER."


Having said that, Bush is still a dope. Let's just get history right.

[scottinnj]

http://arago4.tnw.utwente.nl/stonedead/movies/holy-grail/thumbnails/09-historian.jpg

"Defeat at Baghdad seemed to have utterly disheartened King Bush. The ferocity of the Sunni taunting took him completely by surprise, and Dubya became convinced that a new strategy was required if the Quest for the Wurr on Turr were to be brought to a successful conclusion. Arthur, having consulted his closest Neocons, decided that they should separate and search for turrists individually. Now, this is what they did — "



-Went on a quest and were massacred by the evil and ferocious "Killer Rabbit"

[Bob Impact]

I thought all the Historians were busy Party Crashing to try and go back in time and kill their mothers.

[epo]

It appears that George Jr. has a new critic, none other than former President & Nobel Peace Prize winner Jimmy Carter. Link to AP story here. (http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=590879&category=&BCCode=&newsdate=5/19/2007)

Carter in the article describes Bush's global impact with terms such as "worst ever".

[Dudeman]

“In terms of economic damage, Reagan."


WOW! Whoever said that-should be taken off the study. Anyone remember how bad the economy was when he took office? That statement should say:

“In terms of economic damage, CARTER."


Having said that, Bush is still a dope. Let's just get history right.

like the current administration, the Reagans economy only help the rich. the gap between rich and poor grew (and is growing) dramatically due to thier policies. but those who blindly support reagan don't take that into account. (not to mention, reagan and gwb- our great fiscal conservatives/ anti-fed government leaders- grew our deficit.) but reagan was great- his optimisim was so helpful.

[A.J.]

It appears that George Jr. has a new critic, none other than former President & Nobel Peace Prize winner Jimmy Carter. Link to AP story here. (http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=590879&category=&BCCode=&newsdate=5/19/2007)

Carter in the article describes Bush's global impact with terms such as "worst ever".


Well, Carter should know about failed Presidencies.

[Fat_Sunny]

It appears that George Jr. has a new critic, none other than former President & Nobel Peace Prize winner Jimmy Carter. Link to AP story here. (http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=590879&category=&BCCode=&newsdate=5/19/2007)

Carter in the article describes Bush's global impact with terms such as "worst ever".

In The Old Days, Up To 3-4 Years Ago, An Ex-President Would NEVER Diss A Current President. The Presidency Was Deemed To Be A Symbol Of The American People And It Was Considered Totally Innappropriate And Completely Tasteless For An Ex To Knock The Current.

In Fat's Book, It Still Is.

Carter Is A Bitter Little Man.

[Dudeman]

Well, Carter should know about failed Presidencies.

carter got a lot of shit about asking americans to turn down their thermostat, among other things to conserve energy and become less dependent on oil (our use of oil dropped dramatically during his administration.)

nowadays, even bush, who was still in total denile of this issue at the beginning of his administration (and still only says things about conservation and alt energy, but doesn't really follow through with the policies), has to admit oil dependence is bad (on many levels.)

americans would rather have reagan tell us we're great, instead of hearing about our weaknesses, and the sacrifices we need to take to overcome them.

[Dudeman]

In The Old Days, Up To 3-4 Years Ago, An Ex-President Would NEVER Diss A Current President. The Presidency Was Deemed To Be A Symbol Of The American People And It Was Considered Totally Innappropriate And Completely Tasteless For An Ex To Knock The Current.

In Fat's Book, It Still Is.

Carter Is A Bitter Little Man.

you mean like the crap rove, bush and cheney said about clinton during the 2000 election- "so much talent, so much wasted"?

[Fat_Sunny]

you mean like the crap rove, bush and cheney said about clinton during the 2000 election- "so much talent, so much wasted"?

NO, That Was A CANDIDATE, Not A President.

GW II Has Never Said A Bad Word About Clinton Since Assuming The Office. Just Like The Other 40+ Presidents Never Spoke Ill Of Other Presidents, Except Now, Carter Has.

[Dudeman]

NO, That Was A CANDIDATE, Not A President.

GW II Has Never Said A Bad Word About Clinton Since Assuming The Office. Just Like The Other 40+ Presidents Never Spoke Ill Of Other Presidents, Except Now, Carter Has.

either way, it is a bit of a bs arguement because to be criticized by an ex-pres, there need to be some alive. for example, by the end of nixon, there were no living ex-presidents (lbj, jfk, truman, fdr- dead, dead, dead, dead).

and are we sure james buchanan never spokle ill of lincoln, or tyler of polk, or clevland of harrison?

[Jujubees2]

I heard that Millard Fillmore bitch slapped James Polk in the papers. He even said that Polk's wife was a Ho.

[Yerdaddy]

In The Old Days, Up To 3-4 Years Ago, An Ex-President Would NEVER Diss A Current President. The Presidency Was Deemed To Be A Symbol Of The American People And It Was Considered Totally Innappropriate And Completely Tasteless For An Ex To Knock The Current.

In Fat's Book, It Still Is.

Carter Is A Bitter Little Man.

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/9091/carveymclaughlinwrongqs2.jpg

WRONG! (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/22/washington/22carter.html?hp=&pagewanted=print)

“I love how because of our short memories, we come up with these eternal rules that don’t really apply,” said the historian Tim Naftali, the director-designate of the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum.

Indeed, there have been several instances of “when ex-presidents attack” over the years. As recently as a few months ago, former President Gerald R. Ford criticized Mr. Bush’s Iraq policy, albeit from the grave. In an article in The Washington Post, Bob Woodward quoted from an interview he conducted with Mr. Ford with the understanding that he could only publish Mr. Ford’s remarks after he died.

Eisenhower was critical of John F. Kennedy’s domestic policies, the first President Bush pounded on Bill Clinton, now his pal, for his Haiti policy, and Nixon chided the first President Bush (for comparing himself to Harry Truman in his 1992 re-election campaign).

Theodore Roosevelt was brutal in his assaults on Taft and Woodrow Wilson, said Patricia O’Toole, author of “When Trumpets Call,” a book about Roosevelt in the years after he left office. She pointed out, however, that Roosevelt would run for president again, putting him in something of a different category than Mr. Carter (who by all accounts will not).

Still, Mr. Carter did not call President Bush a “puzzlewit” and a “fathead” as Roosevelt did Taft, according to “When Trumpets Call.”



When a sitting president is losing the war in Afghanistan, the Wurr on Turr, has lost Iraq - a war of aggression on his own part - and has allowed Bin Laden to live for six years after the worst attack on America in our history there are no fucking rules, written or unwritten, about criticizing that president for any American. It is the very definition of patriotism.

[TooLowBrow]

http://www.bushflash.com/idiot.html