98% Of Historians Call Bush Presidency A Failure

98% Of Historians Call Bush Presidency A Failure

www.usnews.com

President Bush often argues that history will vindicate him. So he can't be pleased with an informal survey of 109 professional historians conducted by the History News Network. It found that 98 percent of them believe that Bush's presidency has been a failure, while only about 2 percent see it as a success.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.telegraph.co.uk
www.presstv.ir

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Meltdown of U.S. Dollar Underway as China Dumps the Currency

War, destroying the constitution, privacy invasion, 9/11 BS, new emergency laws, lying to the public, secret organizations, secret meetings, the list goes on...

You will vote again soon, and it will not matter.

What will you do, what are you doing? Are you people going to wake-up and burn this government to the ground or will you let them burn and ruin you all?!! Yeah I said it BURN!!

I was thinking, war in Iraq=3 trillion $$ of your money basically that was for the oil and not because of terrorism. Now think about this, with 3 trillion $$ you could have taken 1/4 of that money hired some top scientists and developed / marketed free energy devices and the rest feed and health care for all of you who don't have any!

P.S. You should all boycott your fake and rigged elections because it does not matter who you vote for. Also you should never vote for old *people or you'll be caught in the same BS, we need the younger generation in! All these old elite goofs with all of the worlds money have obsolete views of how the world should work. Boycott all wars, spread and share free energy, don't be afraid, move for peace. Refuse to surrender!!!

www.usnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Censor circumvention edit.

[edit on 15-4-2008 by dbates]

Starred and flagged!

I posted this study a couple of weeks ago, although it focused more on whether the Dumbya Presidency was the worst of all time:

www.abovetopsecret.com...&flagit=346783

I don't think there's any question that this maniac and his henchmen's policies have failed the american populace miserably...Although, he and his elitists friends are probably viewing their OWN successes in terms of wealth andf power grabs to be smashing successes, and in that case they'd be correct. These guys have conquered nearly every twisted agenda they have set out to get...Unfortunately, it was at the rest of our expense...

Sure, Historians may have a point, but the real test will be time itelf.
I'm just wondering if this is a fair assessment or if it's a clouded view that's fueled by hatred for the man.
I know if the future eventually ends up telling a different story these sam Historians will give all credit to a more popular successor(s).

Time will tell before we see how this pans out.
Don't forget, even Winston Churchill was not very popular during his time.

Only 98%

Were the other 2% related to him

bush and blair have always had a thing about being in the history books - but I think they'll be in them for the wrong reason, unless they take over the world and have them all re-written

budski,you stole my joke dammit!! Well,as near as.


no fair *folds arms and sulks*

On the contrary, Bush's pResidency has been very successful--for the right people.

Unfortunately the Citizens of the United States of America just aren't the "right" people.

Everyone is right!

There is no doubt in my mind that this administration screwed the people BIG time! Imagine what you would do with 3 trillion

I agree with the possibility that the historians views could be clouded and that they were purposely selected to favor this opinion. Nonetheless it is an opinion that is shared by many, too many if you ask me!!

The problem is that like many others he doesn't care. We need is someone who cares about the people from all walks of life, not only as president but as people, we need to care about each other!

If not, we are going down!

Peace

Too early to have history judge. After all, we are only 29 years into the war with extremist Islamic Fundementalism, with us only striking back recently. There is still much of the story to write.



This might be of some use to you:
The Follies of Instant History: Another Meaningless Poll of Historians
hnn.us...

[edit on 15-4-2008 by pavil]

This is ridiculous! What is wrong with those 2%? I say we drug test them.

2% can't possibly be wrong.

reply to post by pavil


That is 29 years too many my friend

Think of why this all started, why should we even bother that someone is an extremist Islamic Fundamentalist, its a choice that person has made. It is because people interfere with others and force upon their beliefs.

I see no problem with this as long as no one is forcing it on me and even if they do, who cares really, all we have to do is ignore.
If everyone would just leave each other alone and practice compassion, understanding and kindness.

There are extremists in everything, some are targeted more than others.
We all need to reconsider our thoughts and be sure that they are our own and not the TVs.

Peace

reply to post by pavil

Actually this has been going on in one form or another for nearly 1,500 years.

If you want to know about the reasons for unrest at the moment, have a look at US and UK policies of interference in the mideast for the last 150 years or so, with particular attention paid to the period since the end of WW2.

I stopped reading the article immediately when I saw the words "worst presidency" and they weren't directly preceeded or followed by the name "Jimmy Carter." While I wholeheartedly disagree with his weak stance on immigration and I feel that his reluctance and failure to actually utilize our full military might in Iraq in the very beginning has ultimately caused this drawn out war we now find ourselves in, I certainly don't think his presidency has been among the worst ever. He has, however, had the joy and pleasure of having to deal with the loudest, whiniest group of liberal buffoons from the very start of his presidency. While it is true that his last few years have caused more Americans to be dissatisfied with his office, it is also true that from day 1 he had easily 35-40% of the people who he couldn't have pleased (at least not that they would admit publically) no matter what he had done.

reply to post by Drewdatt

If everyone would just leave each other alone and practice compassion, understanding and kindness.

Yes that sounds good if only we weren't human. Try practicing those things after you've been attacked. Not so easy to turn the other cheek..

Unfortunately those extremists are sitting on a wealth of oil so we are forced into dealing with them. If we purely rely on our oil reserves our nation cannot flourish as well. If our country does not flourish it may end up being the next Iraq... a target!

This is humanity.

Originally posted by pavil
Too early to have history judge. After all, we are only 29 years into the war with extremist Islamic Fundementalism, with us only striking back recently. There is still much of the story to write.

Except we pretty much created Islamic "Fundamentalism", at least as it concerns an "organized", "militant" force with the power to threaten our interests, through our screwing around with other countries' political and socio-economic processes. Had we left well enough alone we wouldn't be here now, and if we walked away from it and stopped trying to "fix" or occupy the Middle East it would pretty much go away on its own. They don't hate us for who we are, they hate us for what we do.

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
I stopped reading the article immediately when I saw the words "worst presidency" and they weren't directly preceeded or followed by the name "Jimmy Carter." While I wholeheartedly disagree with his weak stance on immigration and I feel that his reluctance and failure to actually utilize our full military might in Iraq in the very beginning has ultimately caused this drawn out war we now find ourselves in, I certainly don't think his presidency has been among the worst ever. He has, however, had the joy and pleasure of having to deal with the loudest, whiniest group of liberal buffoons from the very start of his presidency. While it is true that his last few years have caused more Americans to be dissatisfied with his office, it is also true that from day 1 he had easily 35-40% of the people who he couldn't have pleased (at least not that they would admit publically) no matter what he had done.

First off, cut the "whiny liberals" crap. Conservatives "whined" a'plenty during the Clinton years, going so far as to try and impeach the man and end his presidency based on a lie about extramarital sex between two consenting adults, in a deposition made for a case that was dismissed. Pot, stop pissin' on my Kettle.

Second, considering his pResidency was illegitimate from the beginning, how can you blame us? The Supreme Court should never even have entertained the very thought of hearing Bush V. Gore. The Constitution forbids the involvement of Federal courts in the electoral process of any state, including Presidential elections.

Of course, there's his (willful) ignorance of any terrorist threat prior to 9/11, despite numerous briefings from the outgoing Administration and those personally hand-delivered to him by then-Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice. He was too busy going on vacation and playing fake cowboy (born in Connecticut with the proverbial "silver spoon", afraid of horses, even his Crawford ranch is fake-designed to make him look more "manly)to bother with the difficulties of hunting down bin Laden (who, BTW, is still out there somewhere--whether you believe he's alive or dead, we never got him because Bush cut and run from the hunt).

Oh, and there's his direct, bold-faced lie to Congress in sending us to war in Iraq. They authorized force only if: A) Saddam did not allow inspectors in (which he did) or B) if we had direct evidence of Saddam's involvement in 9/11 (which was impossible--Saddam and bin Laden were bitter enemies who would have killed each other on sight). Saddam let the inspectors do their jobs, so Bush cooked the books and faked intelligence to say Saddam was involved in 9/11, and got us into the war. He lied, Americans died, pure and simple.

He gave Osama bin Laden everything he wanted to accomplish on 9/11:
A) He got American troops and bases out of Saudi Arabia (the Muslim Holy Land).
B) He involved America in a pointless, seemingly endless conflict on bin Laden's home turf.
C) He helped get oil above $100/barrell.

He refused to listen to the Generals in the run-up to Iraq, steadfastly allowing only a fraction of the troops needed to do the job quickly and efficiently.

He has ignored the economy, offering only his glowing "optimism" to the American people who suffer from predatory lending practices and out-of-control inflation.

And worst of all, he has violated the Constitution and destroyed our image with the rest of the civilized world.

Worst pResident in history? Pfft. Worst "leader" in history, EVER.

The 'experts' said the same thing about Lincoln while he was still in office.

In order for it to be judged a failure, I think we'll have to wait a while.

Lincoln turned out to be a hero ... but not until after the 'experts' said he was a failure.

Granted ... I think in the end it will be. BUT ... you have to wait a good 20 years to know for sure.

Originally posted by Scramjet76
reply to post by Drewdatt

 

If everyone would just leave each other alone and practice compassion, understanding and kindness.

Yes that sounds good if only we weren't human. Try practicing those things after you've been attacked. Not so easy to turn the other cheek..

Unfortunately those extremists are sitting on a wealth of oil so we are forced into dealing with them. If we purely rely on our oil reserves our nation cannot flourish as well. If our country does not flourish it may end up being the next Iraq... a target!

This is humanity.

Or, we can fully develop electrolysis and hydrogen power, decentralize energy production and distribution in this country, and recycle all plastics, and leave oil behind in the dust--along with the people we "have to deal with" to get it.

Originally posted by Drewdatt
reply to post by pavil

 

There are extremists in everything, some are targeted more than others.
We all need to reconsider our thoughts and be sure that they are our own and not the TVs.

So let me get this correct, it is the extremists that are being targeted and picked on? Silly me, I thought it was the extremists doing the killing of innocent civillians with no value as military targets at all.

Your right, I feel bad for picking on them, after all, why should I care that they kill innocent civillians, doesn't effect me right? Wait a second, I am a civillian, hmmmmmmm.

It's always a winning arguement in my book to claim the other side is brainwashed by TV. Makes perfect sense to me. Never mind those pesky little facts.

Sorry for the derailing.

Way to early for history to judge.

Originally posted by The Nighthawk

First off, cut the "whiny liberals" crap. Conservatives "whined" a'plenty during the Clinton years, going so far as to try and impeach the man and end his presidency based on a lie about extramarital sex between two consenting adults, in a deposition made for a case that was dismissed. Pot, stop pissin' on my Kettle.

Yep, whiny liberals. The difference between the whiny liberals and those "whiny conservatives" is the conservatives actually waited for Clinton to do something before they whined about him. The liberals had Bush painted as the antichrist before he was even elected. I honestly think Jesus could have won that election running out of the GOP and the same idiots would have rained down hatred and venom on him purely because they were all stinging from the Clinton impeachment and determined to make the next GOP president's life a living hell.

As for the supreme court issue, exactly how many attempts at rigging recounts did you want to see Al Gore recieve? 10? 20? as many as it took before suddenly we were counting enough ballots from voters that didn't show up to vote, miraculously discerning that had they voted they'd have clearly voted for Gore to win him the state of Florida? I'll remind you that when all was said and done, all independant recounts performed after the Supreme Court decision showed that Bush had won Florida regardless... the only recount that would have awarded the state to Gore was one in which if a voter voted predominantly democrat, but failed to select either candidate for president, their vote was awarded to Gore. That isn't democracy in any shape or form, it is a contnuation of the liberals presuming to know what we want because they're the ones telling us what we should want. Bush won 2 legitimate elections and is the rightful president of the United States of America.

We never got bin Laden because he's holed up in Pakistan and, as I was informed in another thread, apparently it isn't "the right attitude" to support the idea of entering Pakistan to bomb him and the tribes that are assisting him into non-existance.

I couldn't care less about this whole "international image" nonsense. Apparently the world respected us prior to 9/11... and it got over 3,000 civillians killed and several American monument-caliber buildings either destroyed or badly damaged (in the case of the Pentagon). Interestingly enough, since the world stopped respecting us and started fearing us, we haven't faced another attack on US soil. Coincidence?

Bush's mistake in handling the economy was allowing that old fossil holdover from the Clinton regime, Alan Greenspan, to stay around and tout the ARM loan for far too long. Considering our econmy was entering a recession under Greenspan when Bush took office, he really should have replaced Greenspan immediately, but unfortunately he didn't.

I will agree wholeheartedly with you on the topic of how we handled the war, however. Troops should have never set foot on Iraqi soil before the insurgent fighters there had been utterly eradicated through shelling and bombing from safe distances. Shock & Awe never materialized and it has cost us an ungodly toll in terms of money and soldier casualties. As for a reason to go into Iraq, the fact that we hadn't finished the job 9 years prior and Hussein was still alive was all the reason I needed, but others' results may vary. I will say this, Congress was equally at fault in all of this because they never bothered to fact check the ream upon ream of intelligence reports they recieved, either. Regardless of all that, I think it's pretty laughable to believe that Saddam didn't send a fairly large ammount of munitions and chemical weapons into Syria before the war. After all, we did track the convoys of trucks hauling something there.