Rolling Stone: The Worst President in History?

[Tigermoose]

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/profile/story/9961300/the_worst_president_in_history

"George W. Bush's presidency appears headed for colossal historical disgrace. Barring a cataclysmic event on the order of the terrorist attacks of September 11th, after which the public might rally around the White House once again, there seems to be little the administration can do to avoid being ranked on the lowest tier of U.S. presidents. And that may be the best-case scenario. Many historians are now wondering whether Bush, in fact, will be remembered as the very worst president in all of American history..."

"Now, though, George W. Bush is in serious contention for the title of worst ever. In early 2004, an informal survey of 415 historians conducted by the nonpartisan History News Network found that eighty-one percent considered the Bush administration a "failure." Among those who called Bush a success, many gave the president high marks only for his ability to mobilize public support and get Congress to go along with what one historian called the administration's "pursuit of disastrous policies."..."

"The presidents most commonly linked with Bush included Hoover, Andrew Johnson and Buchanan. Twelve percent of the historians polled -- nearly as many as those who rated Bush a success -- flatly called Bush the worst president in American history. And these figures were gathered before the debacles over Hurricane Katrina, Bush's role in the Valerie Plame leak affair and the deterioration of the situation in Iraq. Were the historians polled today, that figure would certainly be higher..."

"Since the commencement of reliable polling in the 1940s, only one twice-elected president has seen his ratings fall as low as Bush's in his second term: Richard Nixon, during the months preceding his resignation in 1974. No two-term president since polling began has fallen from such a height of popularity as Bush's (in the neighborhood of ninety percent, during the patriotic upswell following the 2001 attacks) to such a low (now in the midthirties). No president, including Harry Truman (whose ratings sometimes dipped below Nixonian levels), has experienced such a virtually unrelieved decline as Bush has since his high point. Apart from sharp but temporary upticks that followed the commencement of the Iraq war and the capture of Saddam Hussein, and a recovery during the weeks just before and after his re-election, the Bush trend has been a profile in fairly steady disillusionment..."

"Bush, however, is one of the rarities in presidential history: He has not only stumbled badly in every one of these key areas, he has also displayed a weakness common among the greatest presidential failures -- an unswerving adherence to a simplistic ideology that abjures deviation from dogma as heresy, thus preventing any pragmatic adjustment to changing realities. Repeatedly, Bush has undone himself, a failing revealed in each major area of presidential performance..."

[nam78_two]

1. heh

>>In early 2004, an informal survey of 415 historians conducted by the nonpartisan History News Network found that eighty-one percent considered the Bush administration a "failure."


Don't you know, there are NO non-partisan hstorians or academics :sarcasm:
They are all soy-latte sipping elitists who are out of touch with the common man, unlike the Bushies billionaire oil buddies :eyes:

[Phredicles]

2. Whoa, when Ulysses S. Grant's presidency is kicking your ass,

it's time for some serious soul-searching. Too bad Bush lacks the capacity for it (not to mention a soul).

[Marrak]

3. He's riding low in the...

drawers, an'as been 'fer's long'n I's 'member

[Kikosexy2]

12. So is he a ...

low-rider?....har, har

[Ezlivin]

4. "Barring a cataclysmic event..." - and THAT is what worries me

These guys really, really wanted a second Pearl Harbor so that they could pursue their crazed M.E. policy.

If they need another cataclysmic terror attack, I'm sure they can simply call up the same crew that was behind 9/11.

I'm just sayin'....

[glitch]

8. The thing that may be stopping them is their focus groups may say another

attack will backfire. They are supposed to be keeping us safe after all. They would lose a major plank in their platform if another attack occurs.
They should've lost it after 9/11 but the big lie does seem to work for while when you have a complicit media. I don't think it will work again.

[tbyg52]

10. Wooeeee, I do hope you are right!

They'd sure do it if they thought it wouldn't (so to speak) blow up in their faces.

[glitch]

11. So do I tbyg52, so do I. nt

[Tigermoose]

15. Maybe those in power don't care about being re-elected.

Maybe they are going for broke, setting the wheels in motion for their own ideologies and profits. This might be their only chance. Every time I see another MSM article about Iran possibly having nuclear weapons, I get a cold chill.

Just wait until our troops are mysteriously attacked by biological or chemical weapons by some Shi'ites in Iraq...

[glitch]

16. I do feel they are going for broke and don't feel normal human limits

on their actions. I also think they are smart enough to try and do what is effective to achieve their goals, but when those actions fail they will resort to more obvious brute force. And I do not think they will relinquish power willingly.
I just think they may realize another attack on US soil won't work to their favor, so they will try something else.
I agree with you that our troops are a likely target of their next attack.

[petgoat]

17. Going for Broke

They know that when they relinquish power, indictments are likely.

This is as it always is for dictators. They seize power because of
some perceived need. They overstep in wielding their extraordinary
powers. Then they must retain power--at all costs--to avoid being
held accountable for their crimes.

[glitch]

19. Same as it ever was. No wonder they don't believe in evolution.

They haven't tried it for 30,000 years.

[stopbush]

5. FYI - this artlcle appeared in the May 4, 2006 issue of RS.

[Gregorian]

6. If you manufacture cluster bombs, he's a raving success.

Otherwise, it's America in Reverse.

There is no stumbling. That is giving him and Copresident Cheney way too much little credit.

[texastoast]

7. Rolling Stone? Hello?

"Barring a cataclysmic event on the order of the terrorist attacks of September 11th, after which the public might rally around the White House once again, . . ."

Do not give these people any ideas.

[yurbud]

21. They've already got idea. Cheney said it LAST summer: terror attack to...

This didn't get much play when it came out because nobody believed the Bushies would be stupid enough to start a third war while they were still busy losing a second.

Since then, Sy Hersh and others have confirmed the plan. They seem to be just waiting for the attack, which probably won't happen until they roll out their new product in the fall.

KEY EXCERPTS:

The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option.

As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States.

Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing--that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack--but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.

http://www.amconmag.com/2005a/2005_08_01/article3.html

[degreesofgray]

9. Why bother with the ?

Having known about this abysmal bozo for years, then watching him bumble and thieve his way to the top in 2000 and then again in 2004, it is flat out perplexing to me that there is anyone out there still singing the praises of the presidential empty suit. And, doesn't it just tickle the irony bone how it takes Rolling Stone (and a slew of bloggers) to actually examine the questions that the robotic dolts in the (so-called liberal) mainstream press avoid at every opportunity?

[Demeter]

13. One More Cataclysmic Event and We Lynch Bush and Cheney

with a side of fried Rice.

[petgoat]

18. Lynching is too good for them. Besides, we need to

precedent for our grandchildren. Their programs and actions need to be
solidly and legally repudiated. They need to go to The Hague.

[ginnyinWI]

14. to paraphrase that last paragraph:

He's just too dumb to be president!
:yoiks:

[Marrak]

20. Imagine an entire life span...

day in and day out, where "trail and error" had no relevance! Like being "blind" with no pain receptors. A life-time of damage with no feedback. :wtf:

[Joe Chi Minh]

22. If that's what those historians are wondering, it doesn't say an

awful lot for their own intelligence.

It's a no-brainer, so how is it that they're supposed to be insightful academics? No wonder Irving's called a historian, and Dacre failed to realise the alleged Hitler Diaries were fakes, when even Irving wasn't taken in by them. Wow!

Is it any wonder the world's in the state it's in when integrity is in such short supply among its putative luminaries. When the heart's amiss, the brain goes AWOL. They should have felt the questioner was mocking them to put a question like that to them. Did they think the historians had all been comatose these last 5 years?

[Joe Chi Minh]

24. The Onion journalist (and doubtless many other Americans)

meticulously detailed it all in advance (well.... improbable as it seems, it's been even worse), yet these mutts are pondering this knotty conundrum.

As UK Labour Party giant, Aneurin Bevan, observed, "Why look in the crystal ball when you can read the book?" The Onion did the former most penetratingly, yet a lot of these "historians", it seems, can't even "read the book".

Churchill was a very indifferent politician, but a pre-eminent statesman, who in a time of great crisis, was finally able to mobilise strong support from all quarters, most notably, of course, the US. I wonder if Bush's apologists see a distinguished statesman and world leader in Bush, whose genius simply awaits recognition....

[Joe Bacon]

23. Buchannan, Grant, Nixon and Harding got "F's, BUT

Bush is so bad, he'll be the first to get a "G" to go with his "W" :evilgrin: