It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


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

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on May, 22 2004 @ 06:34 AM
The NWO historians have him givin him marks as a success as far as I have been told...haliburtin historians say they will honor bush for centuries..

posted on May, 22 2004 @ 07:14 AM
A little common sense will tell most people that history isn't written until it's over. It sounds like these "histrorians" want to make history - not record it!

posted on May, 22 2004 @ 02:57 PM
link guys win. From now on no decision will be made until the historians tell us what the history of that choice will entail. Just curious...but what are all those former Soviet Union trained historians doing these days? (will that be paper of plastic?)

posted on May, 22 2004 @ 03:09 PM
I just heard that these 415 historians are the same ones helping Clinton write his memoirs. That'll make it easy. Even if something did happen it can be changed. For that matter who cares what happens we'll tell the story we want to tell. Hey, aren't these the same writers that wrote the script for the CBS movie about Reagan?

posted on May, 22 2004 @ 03:12 PM
well they should hes ben really stupid latly

posted on May, 22 2004 @ 03:24 PM

Originally posted by Bout Time
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.

I think that had the figures been reversed (80% in favor of Bush) you would be the first one to post that they must have used only "right-wing" historians.

On the list you recommended I see that Lincoln was number one. I'll bet if you had polled southern historians during the Civil War he would have been a little further down the list.

We have not had time to get a historical perspective on the current Bush administration.

posted on May, 22 2004 @ 06:22 PM

Originally posted by CommonSense
A little common sense will tell most people that history isn't written until it's over. It sounds like these "histrorians" want to make history - not record it!

This is pretty much what i thought when I read this post. You cant judge a president's legacy until after all is said and done. After we've gone through a few elections and look at where we are then we can say Bush really f-ed us up or wow his actions really helped us out or whatever. There are always going to be extremist that hate him and some that love him. We the US are a divided nation and always will be. Our government's first job is to keep us from another civil war. A president like Bush really makes it obvious how divided the USofA really is.

posted on May, 22 2004 @ 07:45 PM
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi criticized Bush as incompetent and is the first major political figure to use the word.Miserable failure has been a Google synonym for the Bush Presidency for months now, but public figures have shunned such negative, judgmental and damning words until now.

What I find interesting and somewhat telling after reading the posts in reply to this news report is no one has vigorously denied the charge of Bushs incompetence as President- a fact which Republican/Conservative posters here need to do a deep personal examination of conscience as to the efficacy of their continued support of this Administration.

Can we afford another 4 years of George Bush?

The Republican Convention still offers some hope. Golly know the Party has many other qualified members to carry the banner to the WH in 04.

posted on May, 24 2004 @ 10:03 AM

Originally posted by Seth Bullock
I think that had the figures been reversed......

And if wishes were dishes we could all serve cake.

What's your point? I politicized nothing; neither did the respondant historians, though we can surely expect some Fox News sampling to spring up in contradiction.. What's so hard to fathom? Is it because the "captain" of your "team" is the target of scrutiny for failed service & poor performance? Those facts are inescapable, deal with it already & stop the hypothetical mental masturbation: Bush sucks - people are talking about it - it will increase in decible the longer you folks stay obstinate.
History, like races, is judged in different distances. The measures he implemented in 2001 can't be judged historically for their impact!?!

Or 2002 & 2003? This was the first modern presidency, so there's nothing historically to compare it against?

Spin ferocious, the Neo-Con way.

posted on May, 27 2004 @ 07:20 PM
I would agree it is too soon to judge what will come of President Bush in the history books. I remember the Iran/Contra scandal during Reagan's presidency. Many people view Reagan as a great leader these days. It will depend on the out come of Iraq. One thing you MUST remember is no matter what Bush does the Democrats will say he is incompetent. If they said he was competent why someone in their party would get any votes.

Furthermore, while I disagreed with his decision to go to Iraq without the UN’s support I have to respect it to. In my opinion the UN should never dictate policy to the USA or to any other country. They should be peace keepers not critics. Nations should never loose their sense of individuality. UN or not.

Its politics and nothing more.

[Edited on 27-5-2004 by silverdawn]

posted on May, 28 2004 @ 10:04 AM

Originally posted by Venus

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.

This is all true, but theres no escaping the fact that Bush has led the US into war with two countries on false pretences.

posted on May, 28 2004 @ 01:15 PM
acctually i dont see the ways the pool being make is a good ways.well this is how i seen it before.since the second iraq war,this pool is going around is
most in the US news paper.and most of the time the pool will give something like this 33againt mr president while the rests point like the ways mr president do it.but next day what we see it is really defferent 49againt him but 51 on his side ;.and only after the ABU GHARIB issue arise then the pool came up 80 againt MR PRESIDENT 20 still stupid to stay on his side.what is this are people in the news papers going NUT,stupid enuff or they being ask to do that!!!what is this come on give me a break here!!!do you think we people out of UNITED STATED OF AMERICA stupid like all of you people in CIA,FBI,NSA.well if all of you think on that ways then you got nothing here,we just see how stupid motherfication you are guys doing there.we d like too see more please do it

posted on May, 29 2004 @ 01:10 AM
I don't understand, what nut-case looks at a Historian and asks how someone will be remembered in the future? Only future historians will tell, this poll is absolutely 100% meaningless.


posted on May, 30 2004 @ 11:53 AM
AS time goes along we'll see how many other dirty little deals that this criminal administration has thier fingers in!! Once President Kerry opens
the secret vault of the bush-crime-family all of the crap will flow forth and 99% of the historians will all agree that this was truly the worst, most crooked, most corupt administration not only in US history but in the history of all democratic world leaders.

KERRY IN 2004!!!


posted on May, 30 2004 @ 12:04 PM

Like I said earlier "I just heard that these 415 historians are the same ones helping Clinton write his memoirs. That'll make it easy. Even if something did happen it can be changed. For that matter who cares what happens we'll tell the story we want to tell. Hey, aren't these the same writers that wrote the script for the CBS movie about Reagan?"

Or Seekerof "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.

Do you know what "history" means. It's only written when it's over. Unless of course you have complete and accurate knowledge of future events. Not!

posted on May, 31 2004 @ 02:31 AM
Venus! Don't you care about anybody but Americans? A lot of innocent Iraqi civilians have died and probably many more soldiers. And for what reason? Democracy? Many of them honestly don't want democracy, they believe that the western societies corrupt the minds of people. So if they don't want democracy, how will you then implement it? By force? Is that democracy?

I think that after the experience they have had with American "democracy", they'll hate this beautiful idea for a long time to come.

Further the Iraqis will not have democracy anytime soon, they have got far too much oil for that. The Bush administration is not setting up 14 permanent military bases, as a preparation to leave the country.

posted on May, 31 2004 @ 02:46 PM
Considering that 90 percent of historians (i.e. univerity professors) are hard core liberal Democrats.

I'm impressed that the President scored so well considering how partisan the judging panel was!

posted on May, 31 2004 @ 06:17 PM

"Unprecidented round-up of Historians sent to Guantanamo."

"Text Books Edited to Emphasise G.W.Bush's Accomplishments."

(News Headlines of the Future)

posted on Jun, 1 2004 @ 12:25 AM
kerry apparently doesnt believe in free speech and gave the middle finger to a vet today at the memorial. besides being a chicken and a liar-if its between kerry and bush the more i learn about kerry the millionaire with his 8 suvs that"he doesnt own" his mansions where he imported house builders AND material from england while letting the idaho out of work people stay poor in sun valley---im voting for the texan who has guts

check it out

posted on Jun, 1 2004 @ 01:30 AM
One thing that I bet Clinton is leaving out of his memoirs, the events of a small African nation in April 1994, Rwanda.
I spit on you Clinton!
Not that I think Bush is particularily good either, in fact I think he's awful too, the American political system needs a general cleaning of house, out with the old parties and in with some new ones, maybe they would get better then 51.3% of eligable voters out.

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in