POLITICS: POLL: 80% of Historians see Bush as Failure

LOL, No BT, I would share.

I think you miss my point...or ignored it. Nobody can speculate on what history is going to be. If we could there would be no need for discussion boards. They may know history, but they have no idea what the future holds. All it is is a bunch of proffessors that don't get out much SPECULATING on the future. In 5 or 10 years, maybe we can come back to this topic and see if they were right. Rember what they said about WW1..."The war to end all wars". I think they were wrong about that one,and could be wrong about Bush.
I am not trying to defend Bush,but its a bit soon to think about where he will end up in the history books. Nobody knows.

I agree with the historians, I was just saying the same thing in the mudpit I think it was, just a few days ago. Said that I wouldnt be surprised if Bush goes down in history as one of the WORST US Presidents. He is a bad planner.

Well, I remember when I first came to ATS.....there were some "predictions" I made back then too......I won't say I told you so ( but I'll imply it!!).

I feel that a near complete term is enough comperative data to assess where we where, what was done/not done and where we are now. I kind of see your argument as this: we have a catasthrophic event where we all lose three inches off of our left legs. THe kid who ran a 30 sec. 100 meter dash is now viewed as the "worlds fatest man". That's the only way how I see Bush coming up as "great" in anything he's been a part of!

And it's a long flight to CA.....can you ship the Cali sticky icky out East?

[Edited on 21-5-2004 by Bout Time]

I don't think a year in Iraq or 2 years in Afghanistan is enough time to see where al the cookies are going to fall. Keep in mind the war terror and I raq were never intended to short term gains. It is going to take years, for anything good to come from there. But if and when something good does come out of there,more than likely it will Bush that will be given credit. Even if another president makes changes that make progress,Bush got the ball rolling.
I am not realy all that frustrated about the middle east at this point. I am smart enough to know that it is not going to an easy task. The economey I am not sure about though. It has been jumping all over the place. Its good,its bad,good again and back too bad. Notice I never said great.

Oh by the way BT....Its worth the flight.

hehehe, let me guess, all the 415 surveyed in this poll were from the Historians Against the War, BT? Even IF not, the source of this polling is flawed due to its obvious bias, and with such bias, still had 77 of them saying it was success? Wow, now thats, those 77 within a biased grouping, a success within itself, coming from and with such bias.



seekerof

ran across this while I was google-ing

FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.

Truman finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,333 per year.

John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.

Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.

In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. We lost 600 soldiers, an average of 300 a year. Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home.

Nyeff: you're going off the premise that the Iraq invasion was warranted; that's the first & most stark question that history will judge the success by. It's not looking to good for a positive light rememberence at this point or anytime soon.

SeeK: I'm not seeing a bias. I'm seeing people who study this stuff as their means of support weighing in with their educated opinion. 20% saying he's a success is pretty high......or that 20% was high, I don't know which.

How utterly ridiculous is it to judge policy by its effectiveness in the first 1-3 years? It is not uncommon for a policy to take several years to bear fruit. I can not say at this point what Bush will be remembered as, however I find it hard to believe that it is already written in stone.
At this point in his administration, Clinton's (undesereved) reputation as savior of the economy was hardly certain.

As a trained historian and former history professor, I'm inclined to agree that we can't empiracally judge Bush's presidency at this point. In grad school, it was the common adage that no event or personality could be judged dispassionately until at least 20-30 years had passed. You cannot judge a president's stature, in history, while in the midst of the presidency. For one thing, events have not played out as of yet and, as mentioned by others, we are too influenced by our own prejudices and subjective experiences.
With all that historical mumbo-jumbo said, I betcha Bush won't be at the top of the list in 50 years, but, of course, I'm highly prejudiced.
joey