There's a lot more than just Iraq. It's really a litany of f'ups, power grabs, and disregard for the law. Katrina Abu Ghraib No Bin Laden Warrantless wiretaps Harriet Miers Alberto Gonzales Torture Secret CIA prisons Gitmo Habeas Corpus Led the anti-Gay marriage charge to get re-elected Privatization of the US military, ie Blackwater
It's curious that some people think it's premature to rate shrubs presidency, when people were already rating Clinton's presidency during, after and still. What's the length of time again before judging? And to hear conservatives bash Carter for how the economy was when he left and yet continue to believe that everything is fine now. Ha! So by that measure shrub will be rated worse than Carter actually was.
Again you can blame Bush since he was in the middle of this stuff but most of it is just part of the total cluster%^&* that is Iraq. I am no Bush fan so just to restate my original thought: Bush has overseen a crappy 8 years, he screwed himself by invading Iraq but I find that problem to be smaller than dot-com burst, credit crunch, National debt, and 9-11-2001 attacks. While he is up to his neck for Iraq I don;t think he deserves sole blame for the other large scale national problems (most of the ones you listed are pretty political instead of major national problems)
I must have missed the fracture of the Union followed by years of civil war over the past 8 years. Which states went which way? Is the war over? If so, who won?
That war's never quite been over and this administration did their damndest to keep it going. I do agree it's way too early to completely judge this presidency... I bet a lot more comes up and it would not surprise me if we eventually learn they were spying on political opponents. But I do think we know enough to make a general rating. We certainly are just as entitled to start thinking about W's place in history as the Repubs who wanted Reagan's visage on Mt. Rushmore before he left office.
GW Bush can't be held responsible for things like Katrina happening and I don't really think he can be held responsible for 9/11 but its not a matter that those things happened as to how he has responded to them. Lincoln wasn't responsible for the Civil War as the country was already heading towards a serious split but it is his response to it that is remembered. I do agree though that it is far too early to determine where GW Bush's place in history is but so far things aren't looking very good for him.
He'll be blasted for going against traditional and proven wisdom from past statesmen, the blatant and excessive cronyism with no regard to the talent gap of his appointees, and the circle the wagons mentality that earned him no favors with his colleagues and opponents on Capitol Hill, which also resulted from deep polarization in American politics after highs in unity shortly after 9/11. And that's only if things do pick up in the next 20 years.
Let's see... 1. Inflation 2. Rising unemployment 3. High prices for gasoline 4. Clusterf*** in the Middle East. Carter and Bush look to be eerily similar.
His presidency has no accomplishments. None. At least Carter can point to the Camp David Peace Accords as something.
Remember in 1999 when trucks full of milk were literally dumped out to drive the prices higher? Prices had been around 99 cents per gallon for whole milk but dairy farmers were suffering from making too little profit. Since that massive dump off, prices have been over $2 and usually between $2.50 and $3.00 around the nation. I remember. I had kids that drank it, and needed it. I remember the story on the news in Dallas... I remember that it was already $3 in 2000 in ABQ, NM. So my point is... it had/has nothing to do with Dubya. Many other things he gets blamed for have nothing to do solely with him either.
The war between the states has never quite been over? I know down in Dixie you like to think the south will rise again, but I don't see it happening.
I drink a lot of milk but frankly I don;t think I have seen it under 2 bucks since the mid 90's. It was 2 bucks for a LONG time. It did just this past year jump crazy amounts to over 3.50 but I don;t remember 99 cent milk ever. And I remember 96 cent gas. (1996-97 or so)
Dallas area had milk special for 99 cents quite often... it would run around $1.75 normally. But yeah... the dump off was in 1999 though. Only reason I remember is because my son was born that year and I was like "why?" Just when you have a kid, the price jumps... It's all relative. BTW- it was .88 a gallon for regular unleaded.. and sometimes even down to .77 where I lived as late as 1997. Man. Time flies. Prices rise.
Rating is fine but don't historians usually take a longer perspective? Isn't that what history is about?
A later study found that 2% of respondents will misunderstand the question and their response should be reversed.
Thank you. Historians of the present are myopic and highly influenced by the mood of the day. It generally takes at least one generation, if not two, before events unfold enough to see the results of policies. I always look back at Lyndon B. Johnson. Historians of that present were extremely harsh in his evaluation. Today, we look back at all the positives he accomplished and his handling of a war that belonged to the sacrosanct John F. Kennedy. (Don't get me wrong -- I loved JFK then and I still do but it was his war). The civil rights movement and social improvement advocates owe him a lot. Also, the Bush era is almost done. I hope we can look forward to our future rather than wallow in what we momentarily perceive as historical low points.
