Historians rate Shrub as worst President...

[TreasonousBastard]

In case you missed this the last time I posted it, there's a new article on HNN's admittedly unscientific poll.

http://hnn.us/articles/48916.html


Two comments from the article:

“No individual president can compare to the second Bush,” wrote one. “Glib, contemptuous, ignorant, incurious, a dupe of anyone who humors his deluded belief in his heroic self, he has bankrupted the country with his disastrous war and his tax breaks for the rich, trampled on the Bill of Rights, appointed foxes in every henhouse, compounded the terrorist threat, turned a blind eye to torture and corruption and a looming ecological disaster, and squandered the rest of the world’s goodwill. In short, no other president’s faults have had so deleterious an effect on not only the country but the world at large.”

“George Bush has combined mediocrity with malevolent policies and has thus seriously damaged the welfare and standing of the United States,” wrote one of the historians, echoing the assessments of many of his professional colleagues. “Bush does only two things well,” said one of the most distinguished historians. “He knows how to make the very rich very much richer, and he has an amazing talent for f**king up everything else he even approaches. His administration has been the most reckless, dangerous, irresponsible, mendacious, arrogant, self-righteous, incompetent, and deeply corrupt one in all of American history.”

[GetTheRightVote]

1. sounds like they know him pretty will indeed, so to be history for all of us

[Art_from_Ark]

2. Talk about a no-brainer...

Even Nixon looks like a saint by comparison

[OmahaBlueDog]

3. He'll be in the worst Prez debate for generations..

Reagan had bad policy, but he had smart advisors and was willing to compromise.

Nixon (who looks like a liberal by todays standards) was corrupt, but was highly intelligent and, again, had good advisors.

Junior Bush is the triple threat. He is not that bright (despite what his Yale MBA would suggest), he has bad policy, and has mostly picked incompetent and/or corrupt advisors, or put would-be decent advisors in bad roles. Rumsfeld may go down as the worst SecDef in history, and considering he could have put Colin Powell in the job, that's damning right there. As it was, Powell was an ineffective SecState, and Rice has been (amazingly) even worse. I could go on.

To look for a two-termer this bad, you have to go back to US Grant (I don't count Coolidge because he finished out Harding's 1st term). If you go on an any-president/any-time basis, you have to look back to Warren Harding, Rutherford Hayes, or to the Buchanan/Fillmore era.

[roughsatori]

4. I do not need an historian to validate that truth

BUT...it is great that it is in the news. Many need to read articles to get them thinking about the truth of the catastrophe that *Bush brought upon us. Thank yo for posting that... I recommended your post. :toast:

[UndertheOcean]

5. Ja

[leftofthedial]

6. they are too kind

do they spend much effort on the utter success of implementing the neocon agenda (which failed because it was corrupt from the start)? Nevertheless, king george was overwhelmingly successful


at fucking everything up.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

7. I've got a History degree

And I've been saying that Bush was the worst president ever for a long time!

[Quantess]

8. It doesn't take a genius...

[Lasher]

9. But wait. There's more.

“With his unprovoked and disastrous war of aggression in Iraq and his monstrous deficits, Bush has set this country on a course that will take decades to correct,” said another historian. “When future historians look back to identify the moment at which the United States began to lose its position of world leadership, they will point—rightly—to the Bush presidency. Thanks to his policies, it is now easy to see America losing out to its competitors in any number of area: China is rapidly becoming the manufacturing powerhouse of the next century, India the high tech and services leader, and Europe the region with the best quality of life.”

One historian indicated that his reason for rating Bush as worst is that the current president combines traits of some of his failed predecessors: “the paranoia of Nixon, the ethics of Harding and the good sense of Herbert Hoover.....God willing, this will go down as the nadir of American politics.” Another classified Bush as “an ideologue who got the nation into a totally unnecessary war, and has broken the Constitution more often than even Nixon. He is not a conservative, nor a Christian, just an immoral man....” Still another remarked that Bush’s “denial of any personal responsibility can only be described as silly.”

“It would be difficult to identify a President who, facing major international and domestic crises, has failed in both as clearly as President Bush,” concluded one respondent. “His domestic policies,” another noted, “have had the cumulative effect of shoring up a semi-permanent aristocracy of capital that dwarfs the aristocracy of land against which the founding fathers rebelled; of encouraging a mindless retreat from science and rationalism; and of crippling the nation’s economic base.”

[Hubert Flottz]

12. It's what happens when the Supreme Court sElectes a king.

The people wanted Al Gore if you will recall. The voters didn't do this to our country and I ain't about to EVER "MOVE ON or FORGET, who screwed America!

The founders trusted in the will of the people because they were not a gang of greedy fools...they were "PATRIOTS"

[Perry Logan]

10. Of course, he was never really President.

[Atman]

11. Bush ain't so dumb. This is all by design.

The tax breaks and wars are simply ways to raid the treasury and fill their coffers as they deliberately bring down the country. Only when we're all broke and desperate will BushCo's "New World Order" vision of a North American Union seem palatable to the American (Unites States Americans) people.

Those who still think he blundered us into this mess haven't been paying close enough attention.

.

[Hubert Flottz]

13. I think you nailed it 100%

The dullard in chief is Poppy's 2nd and 3rd terms.

EDIT...Poppy's puppet...the "Curse of 2000" that the old wise ones predicted.

[SammyWinstonJack]

14. Dumb? No. Vicious, vindictive, downright mean as a snake? Yes.

And yes it was all by design.

[ProfessorGAC]

15. It Might Be Someon's Design, But Not Silverspoon's.

He is, in fact, as dumb as advertised. He's not planning anything. He just take direction.
The Professor

[Romulox]

16. he's a puppet on a string. nt

[FlyingSquirrel]

17. Too bad we can't hold a recall

I mean really, why should it continue to be left to CONGRESS ALONE to be able to remove him? Since they obviously have decided it's too politically risky or whatever stupid reason they're giving, it's time for us to be able to take matters into our own hands when it comes to the president. We should be able to recall the VP at the same time.