Does it count as a (most stupid f**king) blunder or is it in the doesn’t-count-’cause-it’s-Iraq category?

Heh. I forgot. Or maybe I just didn’t get the memo.

Oh, and 9/11 was also Clinton’s fault. That memo I did get ;-)

(I bet the reichwingers are still trying to figure out how to put the blame for the Iraq disaster on Clinton)

Would you know who did? Because for the life of me, I cannot recall any…

(I mean losing two wars simultaneously while presiding over two recessions is no small feat)

Too early to weigh in on the Iraq question? Fine, let’s take Iraq out of the equation. What other metrics would you like to use to assess Bush’s presidency?

The response to Katrina -shameful. I don’t believe I need to say more.

The current financial meltdown -the largest since the Great Depression and the second recession under his watch.

Unemployment rate -it’s at an 15-year high and growing.

Secret “renditions” and the torture of detainees -he made both of these repugnant practices de facto matters in his foreign policy.

Illegal wiretaps -listening in on conversations by private citizens, and lying about it.

Afghanistan -the country is in tatters, and getting worse, while the reconstruction efforts falter.

Future positive assessment of his legacy doesn’t look very likely, if you ask me….

He also politicized the FDA and the Dept of Labor. I’m sure could think of more if I had the time…

chimpy politicized science.

The only redeemable quality in Bush’s presidency, is that it is ending. At a long last.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I have to disagree with that. There is also the sinking and discrediting of the GOP

It is IMPOSSIBLE for him to ever be vindicated about Iraq since he sold Iraq with LIES and misrepresentations. Also while Saddam was indeed a butcher he was a minor league thug by the time we invaded comitting his worst attrocities while he was a stron ally. There are many MUCH worse butchers that we ALLIED with like Pol Pot and Suhuarto to just name two. Iraq WAS stable. It WASNT a hotbed for terrorists. In fact the CIA said DIRECTLY they were no threat to us and they had NO evidence of any terrorist activity or support since 1993. There was NO terrorism rationale. If our problem is extremist Islamic terrorism then invading the most SECULAR Ialmic nation in the region was insane. So NO we threw a stable country into turmoil. One thing about brutal dictators they run stable countries for the most part, so eventually having a stable Iraq will NEVER be worth the hundreds of thousands killed nor the loss of moral suasion we lost through the lies not to mention torture. No way Bush EVER looks good no matter WHAT happens to Iraq.

________
First of all this is just absurd and second since your argument seems to be that the future interpretation of Mr Bush is unknowable why would you even make such an absurd statement as if the future of an obituary is in fact knowable. It makes no sense.

This idiot does not seem to know that Nixon protected himself by trashing his own Presidency. And he did not protect and defend the Constitution. When you lie and break the law, when you use the FBI and IRS to punish your enemies you break the Constitution.

As for Bush, the breaking of laws, and the breaking of the Constitution happens so often you can hear them hitting the floor. Whatever way he tries to differentiate between the two Presidents, it comes down to the same thing. All the excuses aside, they broke the law.

Wha!? 9/11 and the invasion & occupation of Iraq are/were the very defining moments of his presidency. Defeating terror, bringing democracy to the Middle East, and the reconstruction of Iraq, were the biggest undertakings of his administration. That is his legacy. Or, more precisely, the failure to live up to his own lofty goals is his legacy.

But now, according to you, all of this should not have too much weight when assessing Bush’s presidency? Pray tell, what else should we ignore? His response to Katrina, the financial crisis, the fact that he presided over two recessions, the alienation of the European allies, the trampling of the law -all of the above?

In order for anyone to say Bush was a good president, they’d have to ignore his entire presidency…

He’ll still be the worst president in American history, until someone more incompetent comes along.

Failure to anticipate a terrorist attack, after being warned by the Clinton administration.

Failure to prepare troops for battle.

Failure to respond to Katrina.

The list is quite long.

Guess I should have read more before I posted. I cited the same poll.

You better put down that kool-aid. It clouds your judgment.

I guess you are not all that familiar, and/or you didn’t actually read the article.

If you had, you’d know it is not his opinion, but the opinion of 109 historians -unscientific as the poll might be, it’s still an indicator of what the scholarly approach to judging Bush’s presidency will reveal: He is one of the worst, probably worse than Nixon. And that is certainly not McElvain’s opinion.

Bush isnt Mohandis Ghandi compared to SATAN, that is ludicrous. Bush LIED to take us to a war HE wanted. Bush shredded the Constitution and lied to Congress. I am willing to entertain arguments that he isnt as bad as Nixon. He also was FAR stupider, more embarassing and incompetent. Putting Kennedy in there is pure partisan pique. Johnson, I can see the argument, Kennedy? please other than Vietnam which there is some argument he was a break on, he was an excellent president.