http://hnn.us/articles/48916.html
61% of historians rate bush's presidency as the worst
and 35% rated his in the 31st to 41st best presidency
98% of historians said his presidency was a failure.

so to all you bushies you continue to prattle on about how bush is the greatest president ever sorry your wrong

<sigh> I miss Sandy :(

<sigh> I miss Sandy :(

so do i god she was entertaining as all hell.

You do know historically all historians as Democrats. They are quite biased.
There, did that sound like her?

You do know historically all historians as Democrats. They are quite biased.
There, did that sound like her?

no where close. but the attempt was a nice effort

Bush sucks. That much is obvious. But the worst? That seems rather ignorant...

You do know historically all historians as Democrats. They are quite biased.
There, did that sound like her?

Yea, a lot of historians are leftwingers, which makes these numbers kinda worthless.

Yea, a lot of historians are leftwingers, which makes these numbers kinda worthless.

why does it not suprise me that humor went over the head of a right winger. first of of all the intellectual fields history is one that has lots of right wingers in it. nice to see yet another right winger shoot them selves in the foot.

Yes, I miss Sandy too, not to mention that hot date that I never got! I hope she is doing well. And hope she again will grace us with her intellect and wit.

I wonder if these are the same 61% that don't know Reagan was president.

why does it not suprise me that humor went over the head of a right winger. first of of all the intellectual fields history is one that has lots of right wingers in it. nice to see yet another right winger shoot them selves in the foot.Really? History professors have lots of right wingers? Really? What have you been smoking?
UCLA. Of the 31 English professors with a registered political affiliation, 29 belong to a party of the left. Of the 56 history professors, 53 belong to the party of the left. Of 13 journalism professors with an affiliation, 12 belong to a party of the left. Of 17 political science professors with a registration, 16 belong to a party of the left. And of the 33 women's studies professors, 31 belong to a party of the left.

What about Cornell University? Of the 12 anthropology professors, 11 are registered to a party of the left. Of 13 economics professors, 10 are with a party of the left. Also on the left, 35 out of 36 English professors. All 29 out of 29 history teachers are registered with a party of the left. Of the 17 political science teachers, 16 registered to the left. Psychology professors totaled 25 to the left out of 26. Sociology managed a 7 registered to the left out of 7. Women's studies was 33 to 0 to the left.

Stanford University? Anthropology, 15 of 16 to the left. Economics, 21 of 28. English, 31 of 33. History, 22 of 24. Political science, 26 of 30. Psychology, 20 of 20. Sociology, 11 of 12. Women's studies, 5 of 5.

Pollster Frank Luntz, last year, surveyed the political affiliations of Ivy League humanities professors. Fifty-seven percent called themselves Democrat, and only 3 percent Republican. http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/elder013003.asp
So, no big surprise history profs, or any proofs don't like Bush. That last figure is really striking. The US population in general is split pretty much 50/50 (a one to one ratio) between democrats and republicans, while college profs go democrat by a 19 to 1 ratio! Is it any surprise whatsoever that such an absurdly skewed group would not approve of the performance of any Republican?

TW, yes these noted and respected historians with phds know nothing of Reagan...give me a friggen break!!! Your unwillingness to look at the truth of any given political situation, just never ceases to amaze me. If you don't like the facts, you just cast out a quick jab at the source...never arguing the facts or merits of the issue.

I want you to keep posting, so I can continue to be amazed and amused. And I want the rest of the world to know what we the responsible citizens are up against in the United States. We are trying to get our government back and once again become once again responsible citizens in a responsible country. But it is not easy.

And I think you and others of your ilk are a good walking argument for reinsituting the Fairness Doctrine in the United States.

Mad, what are your measures for determining a sucessful George II presidency? By what should he be measured? And what are the success of his presidency?

Really? History professors have lots of right wingers? Really? What have you been smoking?

So, no big surprise history profs, or any proofs don't like Bush. That last figure is really striking. The US population in general is split pretty much 50/50 (a one to one ratio) between democrats and republicans, while college profs go democrat by a 19 to 1 ratio! Is it any surprise whatsoever that such an absurdly skewed group would not approve of the performance of any Republican?

i never said professors. i was talking about historians. you intentally misrepresenting what i am saying for your own means

What the fact that i think that Reagan was the worst President we ever had? It's easily verifiable why if you want to do the checking. Bush Jr is horrible I agree, but honestly that is becuase he listened to the wronf people and made some mistakes in judgement. Reagan intentionally led us down a path that has cuased most of our financial suffering the last 28 years. Not that the other idiots in charge hadn't added their own messes.

Honestly since 1980 we have had three terms of competent presidents. If it wasn't for Bush Senior and Bill Clinton, Reagonomics would have driven us into a world wide depression. So forgive me if I don't think Bush Jr is quite that bad.

And BTW can't you understand a little bit of humor?

What the fact that i think that Reagan was the worst President we ever had? It's easily verifiable why if you want to do the checking. Bush Jr is horrible I agree, but honestly that is becuase he listened to the wronf people and made some mistakes in judgement. Reagan intentionally led us down a path that has cuased most of our financial suffering the last 28 years. Not that the other idiots in charge hadn't added their own messes.

Honestly since 1980 we have had three terms of competent presidents. If it wasn't for Bush Senior and Bill Clinton, Reagonomics would have driven us into a world wide depression. So forgive me if I don't think Bush Jr is quite that bad.

And BTW can't you understand a little bit of humor?

yes but reagan did manage to do some things that were good. has bush i don't think so

i never said professors. i was talking about historians. you intentally misrepresenting what i am saying for your own means
So are there a lot of historians out there who aren't professors? Perhaps some guys in think tanks, I suppose. But do you have any hard numbers on how many of these "historians" weren't professors?

What the fact that i think that Reagan was the worst President we ever had? It's easily verifiable why if you want to do the checking. Bush Jr is horrible I agree, but honestly that is becuase he listened to the wronf people and made some mistakes in judgement. Reagan intentionally led us down a path that has cuased most of our financial suffering the last 28 years. Not that the other idiots in charge hadn't added their own messes.

Honestly since 1980 we have had three terms of competent presidents. If it wasn't for Bush Senior and Bill Clinton, Reagonomics would have driven us into a world wide depression. So forgive me if I don't think Bush Jr is quite that bad.

And BTW can't you understand a little bit of humor?

Ok, I apologize, I may have been over the top. Let me explain my logic. To be a successful president in my book, I think a president must be succesful in the following:
- Be able to lead and inspire people (Reagan excelled at this)
- Be able to use the language well (Bush II is seriously lacking here. He is well recognized for inventing new words and giving new meaning to existing words.)
- Fiscial Policy, manage the countries budget in a responsible fashion..defend the people's money and assets (Reagan despite his press and as you pointed out was a very big spender, but for the most part he spent it on public projects. Bush II was an even bigger spender, and reigned over a period when he opened the treasury for raids by American Corporation (please see Medicare Reform and Prescription Drug Program which added hundreds of billions of dollars to the debt and committed the federal government to buying prescription drugs without being able to negotiate price with the drug companies).
- Foriegn Polcy. (Reagan had several major foriegn policy successes and is widely aclaimed to have fostered the fall of the Soviet Union. W on the other hand is hard pressed to find a foriegn policy success. I can not think of one. Perhaps you can help me here.

If W is not that bad, then what are his successes?

Mad, what are your measures for determining a sucessful George II presidency? By what should he be measured? And what are the success of his presidency?
Honestly, I'm not a big fan either. But he's certainly not the worst. Jimmy Carter holds that title.

He did a good job appointing judges. His tax cuts were good, but giving them a sunset was a mistake. He also managed to prevent another terrorist attack on US soil.

On the negative side, he absolutely failed at controlling spending. He created an entirely new entitlement program (Medicare prescription drugs). And he went to war, a war of choice, with insufficient troops to control the country once we'd taken it over.

yes but reagan did manage to do some things that were good. has bush i don't think so

The one thing Reagan did that was good was the break up of the soviet union, but even that was not him and not all that good. The USSR could not afford to keep up with the US forever, they just did not have the resources and never would. However the breakup of the USSR has caused as much turmoil and conflict as it has opression when it was intact. In the end it is a zero sum game.

Bush on the other hand has reduced a major terrorist information clearing house into little more than a joke. He has toppled a ruthless, opressive and murderous dictator. He flubbed up the reconstruction effort for several years but has finally pulled his head out of his ass there. the major economic crisis of his administration wasn't even his doing. Unless you think he told all those banks to give loans to people that didn't deserve them.

Bush has backed some very forward thinking ideas like the guest-worker program. He also wisely stayed out of Kyoto becuase China and India were not part of it. While both were not terribly popular decision on his part histroy will show him to be correct. Our agriculture needs the immigrant workers and it amkes little sense to enter a treaty that does not include the two largest current polluters in the world.

The one thing Reagan did that was good was the break up of the soviet union, but even that was not him and not all that good. The USSR could not afford to keep up with the US forever, they just did not have the resources and never would. However the breakup of the USSR has caused as much turmoil and conflict as it has opression when it was intact. In the end it is a zero sum game.

Bush on the other hand has reduced a major terrorist information clearing house into little more than a joke. He has toppled a ruthless, opressive and murderous dictator. He flubbed up the reconstruction effort for several years but has finally pulled his head out of his ass there. the major economic crisis of his administration wasn't even his doing. Unless you think he told all those banks to give loans to people that didn't deserve them.

Bush has backed some very forward thinking ideas like the guest-worker program. He also wisely stayed out of Kyoto becuase China and India were not part of it. While both were not terribly popular decision on his part histroy will show him to be correct. Our agriculture needs the immigrant workers and it amkes little sense to enter a treaty that does not include the two largest current polluters in the world.
Nice job with Bush, but I think you're pretty hard on the Gipper. Do you remember the state the economy was in under Carter? Stagflation? Interest rates in the teens. High unemployment. Under Reagan interest rates came down, unemployment came down, the economy grew.

And Reagan really inspired confidence. Reagan could give a speech that would inspire and unite the country. I think that's what people like about Obama. He can speak. In that, he's like Reagan.

After eight years of nearly incoherent speech, the Democrats may well win by virtue of simply having the most articulate nominee (should Obama get the nod).

I was no big fan of Carter either. But now as I reflect on Carter. I think maybe he was not as bad as I had originally thought. His failure was internatonal policy, more specifically, Iran. The military handling of Iran was a disaster...caused in no small part by Carter's trying to satisfy all branches of the military when the miitary was not equiped or trainned to do so. The rescue should have been given to the one service best equiped to handle the situation and that would have been the Navy. The rescue should not have been given to all the banches of the service as they were not equiped or trained for such an effort.

Carter's economic problems were inherited and resulted from the fed policy of accommadation (rapid expansion of the money supply) which was a direct result of the oil supply shocks the 70's. So while Carter got the blame, he was not the cause and had no responsibilty for the action of the fed.

So while I agree Carter was not a good president. I think on the whole he was better than W. W inherited a balanced budget. Carter did not. W inherited a fairly responsible fed. Carter did not. W inherited a much better military, one trained and equiped to operate as one unit (Navy, Army, Airforce). Carter did not. Carter inherited Iran. W did not inherit Iraq, that was a mess of his own making. And Carter did not spend as much as W in any way shape of form in real or relative terms. Finally, getting back to the basics, Carter could speak without inventing words and using "uhh" every other 5 to 10 words in a speach. Carter was a much better communicator and public speaker.

Nice job with Bush, but I think you're pretty hard on the Gipper. Do you remember the state the economy was in under Carter? Stagflation? Interest rates in the teens. High unemployment. Under Reagan interest rates came down, unemployment came down, the economy grew.

And our deficit started it's growth. To be honest most of economics is cyclical. However the damage Reagan did bringing stagflation to a premature end was to throw us into a ten year cycle instead of a twenty year one. The recession during Bush Sr. reign was entirely to do with reaganomics.

As for his foreign relations Reagan merely called in Nixon, who despite Scandal is one of our best presidents, and other diplomatic geniuses to do that work for him. One of the better things he did, but i really can;t credit him for that.

And Reagan really inspired confidence. Reagan could give a speech that would inspire and unite the country. I think that's what people like about Obama. He can speak. In that, he's like Reagan.

That is precisely why I don't like Obama. He is Reaganesque. All talk, zero substance. I don't want a man who can smooth talk me. I want a man who can make a tough decision and can take responsibility for it if it fails. I don't want a president who blows sunshine up places sunshine is not supposed to go. I want a man who will do what needs to be done, even if he doesn't like it. Obama is not impressing me with that yet.

After eight years of nearly incoherent speech, the Democrats may well win by virtue of simply having the most articulate nominee (should Obama get the nod).

A great speaker does not make a great statesman. In fact the slicker the speach the more likely they are a crook.

You do know historically all historians as Democrats. They are quite biased.
There, did that sound like her?

Name one thing the Conservative thought process has gotten right historically?

Yea, a lot of historians are leftwingers, which makes these numbers kinda worthless.

That's because right wingers have a deplorable record when it comes to history. Like protecting the institution of slavery, fighting against clean water standards, fighting against civil rights. Jailing brilliant Scientists like Copernicus and Galileo, fighting to protect segregation, denying natural selection, please name one thing that the conservative thought process has gotten right. Nada!!!

i never said professors. i was talking about historians. you intentally misrepresenting what i am saying for your own means

Most historians are professors, there's not much of a job market outside universities and schools for historians......:rolleyes:

That's because right wingers have a deplorable record when it comes to history. Like protecting the institution of slavery, fighting against clean water standards, fighting against civil rights. Jailing brilliant Scientists like Copernicus and Galileo, fighting to protect segregation, denying natural selection, please name one thing that the conservative thought process has gotten right. Nada!!!

LOL, you're funny.

Only 61 %?:shrug:

I was just in Northern Ireland and they have this there

http://jimmysweblog.net/2004/12/20041220-134012.jpg

USA this sum up what the world thinks of you, sad but true.

I was just in Northern Ireland and they have this there

http://jimmysweblog.net/2004/12/20041220-134012.jpg

USA this sum up what the world thinks of you, sad but true.

Wow, so I guess N. Ireland has chosen the side of the terrorists;)

I was just in Northern Ireland and they have this there

http://jimmysweblog.net/2004/12/20041220-134012.jpg

USA this sum up what the world thinks of you, sad but true.

Yea, the U.S. military's and GWB's policy of strapping bombs around army and marine units and having them go on suicide missions in Iraqi cities is terrible. :rolleyes:
And the way the U.S. "steals" oil from Iraq now, just horrible; there should be a UN investigation. :rolleyes:

Honestly, I'm not a big fan either. But he's certainly not the worst. Jimmy Carter holds that title.

I once responded at length (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1419186&postcount=443) to that assertion, and you couldn't be bothered to defend it. But here you are, making it again. You actually believe that Carter's presidency was worse than Nixon's? And without any doubt, Bush II has been worse than Carter.

I was no big fan of Carter either. But now as I reflect on Carter. I think maybe he was not as bad as I had originally thought. His failure was internatonal policy, more specifically, Iran. The military handling of Iran was a disaster...caused in no small part by Carter's trying to satisfy all branches of the military when the miitary was not equiped or trainned to do so. The rescue should have been given to the one service best equiped to handle the situation and that would have been the Navy. The rescue should not have been given to all the banches of the service as they were not equiped or trained for such an effort.

It is easy to see the flaws that led to the failure of Desert One in retrospect. But nothing I have ever read indicates that Carter micromanaged it. The history that I'm aware of is that he proposed a military rescue as a back up plan, and then approved the plan that the Pentagon presented him with. If I were the president, that's what I would have done as well. He never tried to blame the military for a flawed plan that greatly contributed to his loss of the presidency.

Ultimately, the hostages were released unharmed. If Bush II had been in office for this, Iran would likely have been invaded.

Most historians are professors, there's not much of a job market outside universities and schools for historians......:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historian

And what the hell does that link provide, PJ? Seriously? Are you trying to argue that the majority of historians aren't tenured professors?

Honestly since 1980 we have had three terms of competent presidents. If it wasn't for Bush Senior and Bill Clinton, Reagonomics would have driven us into a world wide depression. So forgive me if I don't think Bush Jr is quite that bad. Bush Sr to a degree, and W almost entirely, are continuations of Reagan.

And W did not have the counterweight of moderate Republicans and powerful Democrats in Congress.

So whatever was wrong with Reagan was exaggerated under W - same stuff, even the same people often, less check and no balance. Reagan's administration was forced to raise taxes on rich people a little bit, for example, when things started to get ugly. W&Co just doubled down on the trickle rationale.

Examples: War - compare Grenada with Iraq. Economics: compare the S&L mess with the current banking crisis, or the Federal deficits of the two bozos. Social policy: what do you compare with W's immigration mess? Foreign diplomatic finesse: compare Reagan's Nazi memorializing with W's Gitmo setup.

So the argument that Reagan is the worst depends on how much of W's accomplishments you assign to Reagan's legacy. Because the worst thing Reagan did was set the stage for W&Co.

And what the hell does that link provide, PJ? Seriously? Are you trying to argue that the majority of historians aren't tenured professors?

that there is a decent job market out side of schools for historians

Really? Where? As Anthony said, there are think tanks and such. To this I would add there are some slots in Museums, though most of those have been taken over by the money-men these days. What's left? Authors? There aren't too many of them who make enough money to exist outside academia. Even people like Edmund Morris and David McCullough often teach to help pay the bills.

In sum, I think you were just talking out of your ass, and now you've been caught. History Departments are notorious for their Leftism. After all, it is these people who gave us post-colonialism theory and the like. That they would hate Bush and would ignorantly assign him the "worst" status does not surprise.

Wooo, just a minute here, they can't take Nixons crown of infamy away! That bastard is not burning in hell with an imp crawling up is butt for all eternity just to be ranked 2nd worst USA president!

Really? Where? As Anthony said, there are think tanks and such. To this I would add there are some slots in Museums, though most of those have been taken over by the money-men these days. What's left? Authors? There aren't too many of them who make enough money to exist outside academia. Even people like Edmund Morris and David McCullough often teach to help pay the bills.

In sum, I think you were just talking out of your ass, and now you've been caught. History Departments are notorious for their Leftism. After all, it is these people who gave us post-colonialism theory and the like. That they would hate Bush and would ignorantly assign him the "worst" status does not surprise.

in sum i think you don't like the reality of the truth and feel the need to find excuses for it. and the reason the academic fields have some left bias in them is because conservatives in the states constantly attack acadamia. yes because people who do research in to history would do things ignorantly of their context in history. i haven't been caught.

There is a very lucrative job market for historians in the Righty corporate think tanks, corporate funded positions at the many US religious and conservative colleges and universities, etc.

Any historian who is willing to amend their views to fit job requirements can make a lot more money in one of those positions than picking up a junior faculty job at some liberal elitist backwater.

After eight years of nearly incoherent speech, the Democrats may well win by virtue of simply having the most articulate nominee (should Obama get the nod).
”
A great speaker does not make a great statesman. In fact the slicker the speach the more likely they are a crook. I hope that delusion - one of the most damaging effects of the anti-intellectual bias in America - has elected its last President.

(I've already called credit here on predicting the strategy of making Obama's articulate speech and gentleman's demeanor a liability in itself, btw)

The revision of Reagan conceals maybe the most illuminating instance of this bias in action.

Along with over-estimating Reagan's ability to inspire with eloquence (aside from his writers' deft use of code phrases for bigotry's concerns, he was not particularly eloquent or smooth-talking. He could read well - his actor's training and radio experience stood him in good stead), the conservative revision of Reagan's legacy has edited out what may have been (in retrospect) a symptomatic tendency toward verbal confusion in extemporaneous speech.

There were, during his campaigns, several compilations of Reagan gaffes and word-stumbles - reporters collected them, as they do with W. Possibly, only the appearance of Bush Sr and Dan Quayle immediately subsequent prevented Reagan from being the standard of fumble-tongued, apparently clueless buffoonery gaining great power in American national politics.

And Reagan played off the "elitist" mocking of his many slips of the tongue - he was good at the comfortable, self-deprecating gibe at anyone who would take his inability to express a solid political idea seriously.

Mondale once noted that one of the problems any political opponent of the "Great Communicator" faced was that if you quoted him accurately people would accuse you of mudslinging.

But Reagan was both somewhat more adequate as a speaker, and somewhat less personally crooked as a President, than Bush Sr and now W.

So the point: a ranking of the past several Presidents in order of eloquence is almost a reverse ranking (depending on where exactly Nixon scales as "crooked") of their order as corrupted administrators. And if competence is figured in as an ameliorating factor, the reverse ranking is almost eerily exact.

It's almost as if the liberal, elitist, PhD theorists have a point: it's a lot easier to speak well when you aren't deliberately attempting to deceive, lie, present a false front, talk about what you don't know about, etc.

http://hnn.us/articles/48916.html
61% of historians rate bush's presidency as the worst
and 35% rated his in the 31st to 41st best presidency
98% of historians said his presidency was a failure.

so to all you bushies you continue to prattle on about how bush is the greatest president ever sorry your wrong

1.) Most academics are liberals, which means the poll is biased outright.
2.) Bush had the highest approval rating of any president, ever.
3.) There is absolutely no way that one can judge these things at this point in history. These are things that must be judged years in the future.
4.) ``Wrong'' and ``best'' are subjective, not objective words. If you were to poll the middle east, you may find that Sharia law is the ``best'' form of government, and if you poll Chinese academics, you would find that they think the West is ``wrong'' to criticize China for its failure to deal with Sudan more directly about Darfur.

1.) Most academics are liberals, which means the poll is biased outright. That's dubious, on both ends.

Perhaps fewer academics are Republicans, in many fields anyway ("academics" never seems to include engineers, for some reason) - but there are a lot of reasons for that that other than "liberal" political stances - including, for example, fact based and conservative judgments about the quality of recent and prospective Republican administrations.

On the shelves of my local bookstores and libraries there are many - possibly a majority - works of American History written from a basically conservative point of view. The political Party affiliation of those conservative historians is not usually included in the jacket info, but it's pretty obvious that if the Party affiliation percentages are as described a lot of these conservative historians must be calling themselves Democrats and worse.

And that doesn't necessarily bias a poll. Only if you exclude, a priori, any correspondence of reality and the political stances involved would the effects observed be attributable to the bias of the stances themselves.

Please---have you been on a college campus in America recently?

And it BY DEFINITION biases a poll. The people who are academics are liberal, and this colors their stance on all of these issues. Or perhaps it is the other way around.

I don't think Bush was the greatest president in history, don't get me wrong. But saying that someone is wrong based on an invalid poll is assinine.

Please---have you been on a college campus in America recently? Yeah, a few. I was on the campus of Bethel College, a little north of Saint Paul, MN, a little while ago - My guess would be that conservatives outnumber liberals in its faculty better than 2/1. But not Republicans.

And it BY DEFINITION biases a poll. No, it doesn't. Think a minute - I noted why not. There's a missing factor in the chain of reasoning. The people who are academics are liberal, and this colors their stance on all of these issues. Or perhaps it is the other way around. Or perhaps you are assigning the label "liberal" to the stances best informed by knowledge of the field and expertise in the relevant subjects. In which case your entire objection is an artifact of your labeling criteria.

I don't think Bush was the greatest president in history, don't get me wrong. But saying that someone is wrong based on an invalid poll is assinine. So let's not. Let's just take the poll for what it is - a survey of expert historians for their opinions of how W's administration compares with others they have studied, as far as they know.

Yeah, a few. I was on the campus of Bethel College, a little north of Saint Paul, MN, a little while ago - My guess would be that conservatives outnumber liberals in its faculty better than 2/1. But not Republicans.

Most universities that I've ever been to (and I've been to a few) is completely the opposite. We shall chalk this up to limited sample size on both of our parts?

Or perhaps you are assigning the label "liberal" to the stances best informed by knowledge of the field and expertise in the relevant subjects. In which case your entire objection is an artifact of your labeling criteria.

Only in an OBJECTIVE quesiton is this the case. The field of history, and the opinions of historians are SUBJECTIVE. Otherwise, history would be classed as a hard science.

We shall chalk this up to limited sample size on both of our parts? And possibly divergent notions of what "liberal" entails. I have never been on, or heard of, a US college campus where the great majority of its faculty in the History department were "liberal" in a sense of the word they themselves would endorse.

And I've never seen evidence presented that any great number of professional historians - among the stuffiest, most tradition-bound of intellectual crowds - are more "liberal" than they are "conservative".
Only in an OBJECTIVE quesiton is this the case. The field of history, and the opinions of historians are SUBJECTIVE. But there is no field, and especially not history, in which objective knowledge plays no part in subjective opinion.

So the subjective opinions of the objectively best informed are worth polling for, in some sense of "worth", no?

It is easy to see the flaws that led to the failure of Desert One in retrospect. But nothing I have ever read indicates that Carter micromanaged it. The history that I'm aware of is that he proposed a military rescue as a back up plan, and then approved the plan that the Pentagon presented him with. If I were the president, that's what I would have done as well. He never tried to blame the military for a flawed plan that greatly contributed to his loss of the presidency.

Ultimately, the hostages were released unharmed. If Bush II had been in office for this, Iran would likely have been invaded.

Repo Man, I never said he micro managed the Iran Hostage Issue. But I did say he errored in his handling of the affair. Now this comes as a suprise to a lot of folks these days, especially after w as w always claims he was just doing what the generals said he should do.

But the Comander In Chief needs to behave like a Comander In Chief and not a rubber stamp for the Pentagon. JFK stood up to the Pentagon in the Cuban Missle Crisis. JFK stood up to his military advisers and did the common sense thing. That is the job of a good executive. He/she must question the recommendations of subordinates to see of they hold water...to ask the questions that need to be asked. W has failed to do it and so did Carter.

Carter did do the honorable thing, he took full responsibility for the affair. And as a former Naval officer I would expect nothing less of him. I don't recall W taking credit for any of his mistakes which are legion.

And I've never seen evidence presented that any great number of professional historians - among the stuffiest, most tradition-bound of intellectual crowds - are more "liberal" than they are "conservative".

Ehh..seriously? Maybe in the 50's. The history professors of today were the ones playing target practice for the National Guard at Kent State in the 60's.

But there is no field, and especially not history, in which objective knowledge plays no part in subjective opinion.

This is true---there are facts, and there are conclusions that one draws from them. The conclusions always contain an unavoidable bias in a soft science like history.

So the subjective opinions of the objectively best informed are worth polling for, in some sense of "worth", no?

The point is that basing your opinion on the opinions of others is a worthless thing to do at best and a dangerous endeaver at worst. If you hate Bush, you're not alone. But pointing to some poll and saying ``You're wrong because all of the smart people say so'' is moronic, which is more or less what was done in the original post.

Ben why is it every time and educated intelligent individual says something contrary to conservative mantra, he/she is labled elitist and liberal? I think those labels are getting old. If disagreing with conservative mantra and practice that has been running our lives for the last several decades, then maybe we need to be liberal...maybe we need to wear the liberal brand proudly.

Repo Man, I never said he micro managed the Iran Hostage Issue. But I did say he errored in his handling of the affair. Now this comes as a suprise to a lot of folks these days, especially after w as w always claims he was just doing what the generals said he should do.

But the Comander In Chief needs to behave like a Comander In Chief and not a rubber stamp for the Pentagon. JFK stood up to the Pentagon in the Cuban Missle Crisis. JFK stood up to his military advisers and did the common sense thing. That is the job of a good executive. He/she must question the recommendations of subordinates to see of they hold water...to ask the questions that need to be asked. W has failed to do it and so did Carter.

Carter did do the honorable thing, he took full responsibility for the affair. And as a former Naval officer I would expect nothing less of him. I don't recall W taking credit for any of his mistakes which are legion.

But part of being a leader is knowing when to let the experts in their field do their job. He asked the experts in the Pentagon to come up with the best plan they could. If there were documents showing that Carter had stepped in and said, "No, we are going to use Navy helicopters that will need to be refueled on the ground", I'd be much more inclined to blame him for the mission's disastrous failure. The buck may stop at the CINC, but I cannot fault the president for asking the military to do their best to provide him with a rescue plan, and then trusting their judgment that it was the best that could be hoped for on short notice.

Ehh..seriously? Maybe in the 50's. The history professors of today were the ones playing target practice for the National Guard at Kent State in the 60's.



This is true---there are facts, and there are conclusions that one draws from them. The conclusions always contain an unavoidable bias in a soft science like history.



The point is that basing your opinion on the opinions of others is a worthless thing to do at best and a dangerous endeaver at worst. If you hate Bush, you're not alone. But pointing to some poll and saying ``You're wrong because all of the smart people say so'' is moronic, which is more or less what was done in the original post.

if you are going to insult me show some balls and man up and do it directly

And possibly divergent notions of what "liberal" entails. I have never been on, or heard of, a US college campus where the great majority of its faculty in the History department were "liberal" in a sense of the word they themselves would endorse.


Again, you prove your touch with reality is at best tenuous.

Again, you prove your touch with reality is at best tenuous.

i have been too a couple of different colleges and taken several history classes and i have never had a history profesor that i would describe as liberal. all of them seemed to be in the middle of the road politics wise.

Wooo, just a minute here, they can't take Nixons crown of infamy away! That bastard is not burning in hell with an imp crawling up is butt for all eternity just to be ranked 2nd worst USA president!

Actually Nixon is one of our better presidents. Set aside Watergate and you see a presidency that did exactly what it was supposed to. Even Watergate was not that man's fault, though he should not have protected his people at all.

i have been too a couple of different colleges and taken several history classes and i have never had a history profesor that i would describe as liberal. all of them seemed to be in the middle of the road politics wise.

Well then you have been one of the lucky ones. I have met far more than my share of History professors. They lean quite a bit to the left as a group, which is fine as Business Professors leans quite a bit to the right as a group. that is not to say they are all that way, just a majority. Of course it is true of every profession, members of that profession tend to lean one way of the other as a group the only exceptions are lawyers and politicians. They tend to split right along the lines with the average person.

Actually Nixon is one of our better presidents. Set aside Watergate and you see a presidency that did exactly what it was supposed to. Even Watergate was not that man's fault, though he should not have protected his people at all.

You cannot "set aside" Watergate. That reminds me of the joke, "So, other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?"

If you think that was a successful presidency, I shudder trying to imagine what you define as a failure.

The point is that basing your opinion on the opinions of others is a worthless thing to do at best and a dangerous endeaver at worst. But comparing my opinion with the opinions of the best informed people I can find is not so bad an idea, eh?
And I've never seen evidence presented that any great number of professional historians - among the stuffiest, most tradition-bound of intellectual crowds - are more "liberal" than they are "conservative".
”
Ehh..seriously? Maybe in the 50's. The history professors of today were the ones playing target practice for the National Guard at Kent State in the 60's. My experience of college faculty is quite a bit more recent, and less anecdotally based, than whatever happened at Kent State in the 60s.
. Set aside Watergate and you see a presidency that did exactly what it was supposed to. Well, there's the little matter of the Christmas and Cambodia bombings - one of the worst atrocities of the post-WWII world - and the Southern Strategy of enshrining racial bigotry in the Republican Party in return for electoral leverage, and giving away the store for the prestige kick of "opening China" , and so forth.

But yeah, he was Republican with a glimmer of common sense when it came to deregulating financial markets, and cutting taxes on rich people. So he wasn't a bizarre and spectacular failure at managing the domestic economy.

Actually Nixon is one of our better presidents. Set aside Watergate and you see a presidency that did exactly what it was supposed to. Even Watergate was not that man's fault, though he should not have protected his people at all.

Your delusional! Sure he functioned as a president (unlike the present "decider" ) but you need to listen to the Nixon tapes, the man was a walking anus, a giant talking asshole! We will never know if he was protecting his people or covering his own gigantic ass because of the section of tape that was "accidentally" deleted... at least 5 times over.

But part of being a leader is knowing when to let the experts in their field do their job. He asked the experts in the Pentagon to come up with the best plan they could. If there were documents showing that Carter had stepped in and said, "No, we are going to use Navy helicopters that will need to be refueled on the ground", I'd be much more inclined to blame him for the mission's disastrous failure. The buck may stop at the CINC, but I cannot fault the president for asking the military to do their best to provide him with a rescue plan, and then trusting their judgment that it was the best that could be hoped for on short notice.
Personally, I think that is exactly the role that the President should play, and it is a shame we don't see more of that. But without the failure of Eagle Claw and subsequent lessons learned, we wouldn't have the US Special Operations Command, 160th SOAR, or MV-22 Osprey.

Your delusional! Sure he functioned as a president (unlike the present "decider" ) but you need to listen to the Nixon tapes, the man was a walking anus, a giant talking asshole! We will never know if he was protecting his people or covering his own gigantic ass because of the section of tape that was "accidentally" deleted... at least 5 times over.

I'm not the delusional one here. I look at his presidency and see what he has done. The Scandal was nothing honestly. Some thugs got cuaght doing what the democrats have always done, but becuase they were republicans and got caught there was a crapstorm.

Now look back at Nixon's presidency and actually see what he did.

I'm not the delusional one here. I look at his presidency and see what he has done. The Scandal was nothing honestly. Some thugs got cuaght doing what the democrats have always done, but becuase they were republicans and got caught there was a crapstorm.

Now look back at Nixon's presidency and actually see what he did.

wow tw you had credibilty right up until than

I'm not the delusional one here. I look at his presidency and see what he has done. The Scandal was nothing honestly. Some thugs got cuaght doing what the democrats have always done, but becuase they were republicans and got caught there was a crapstorm.

Now look back at Nixon's presidency and actually see what he did.

Oh like how he started our modern healthcare problems by setting up a system he was openly told was designed to profit the companies by provide ever decreasing quality of care (and he replies "Not bad.")? Yeah what a great guy! The man's successes were achieve by his subordinates who had to constantly keep their asshole boss in check, for example the man wanted to nuke Vietnam, Kissinger kept his monotone cool and told Nixon that "would just be too much".

Any politician can go corrupt, doesn't matter if they are democrat or republicans. Were was the liberal media when Bill got caught with is pants down? Or during the Reagan years? Your just a fool to believe all this demonization of politics: believing one party is eviler then the other! Its people like you that divide the country with political hate and unwavering unthinking party faithful voting, their no such thing as an evil and good party, just evil and good politicians, each needs to be judge individually and not just on what party our pathetic two party system they are apart of.

if you are going to insult me show some balls and man up and do it directly

If you couldn't tell by the tone of the post that I was insulting you, maybe it's better that you got back to your coloring book.

But comparing my opinion with the opinions of the best informed people I can find is not so bad an idea, eh?

Not at all, but when you use things like polls to justify your opinions, you are showing an utter lack of critical thought. Comparing is great, but to say ``You're wrong because some smart people said so'' is pretty ridiculous. Maybe that passes for critical thought SOMEwhere---this is probably why Europeans think all Americans are dumbasses.

Not at all, but when you use things like polls to justify your opinions, you are showing an utter lack of critical thought. don't recall doing that, actually - - -

Some thugs got cuaght doing what the democrats have always done, but becuase they were republicans and got caught there was a crapstorm. Oh baloney. Nixon and his paranoia and his enemies lists and his general darkside approach to things had a lot of unique features, as American presidencies go.

From the future:

June 4th, 2044, 12:00:31 (reuters) Final Review George Walker Bush Library.
After the declassification of all the records of the Bush's Administration seconds ago the Universal Historian Artificial Consciousness Ultracomputer has made its judgment on his administration. For you humans its judgment can basically be summed up that Bush was a moderate to low quality president, but nothing the like our present leader [Name censored to prevent temporal paradox] who is now being put up to the robotic firing squad next Friday, ALL HAIL THE NEW ORDER!

their let the future decide. thread/

If you couldn't tell by the tone of the post that I was insulting you, maybe it's better that you got back to your coloring book.

? i knew you were insulting me i was just implying you were to much of a pussy to do it directly

Not at all, but when you use things like polls to justify your opinions, you are showing an utter lack of critical thought. Comparing is great, but to say ``You're wrong because some smart people said so'' is pretty ridiculous. Maybe that passes for critical thought SOMEwhere---this is probably why Europeans think all Americans are dumbasses.

why am i certain if the poll was everyone thought bush was great. first of polls can be accurate and a good indicator to opinions ideas and consensus on what evidence means. it is a truely naive person who goes its a poll there fore meanless. the census is a type of poll is that bullshit. Why don't you go back to your coloring book in little white padded room so you can get your meds and they real world won't interfer with you silly ideas

Oh like how he started our modern healthcare problems by setting up a system he was openly told was designed to profit the companies by provide ever decreasing quality of care (and he replies "Not bad.")? Yeah what a great guy! The man's successes were achieve by his subordinates who had to constantly keep their asshole boss in check, for example the man wanted to nuke Vietnam, Kissinger kept his monotone cool and told Nixon that "would just be too much".

Any politician can go corrupt, doesn't matter if they are democrat or republicans. Were was the liberal media when Bill got caught with is pants down? Or during the Reagan years? Your just a fool to believe all this demonization of politics: believing one party is eviler then the other! Its people like you that divide the country with political hate and unwavering unthinking party faithful voting, their no such thing as an evil and good party, just evil and good politicians, each needs to be judge individually and not just on what party our pathetic two party system they are apart of.


Okay now you're just being abusively insulting. I'm not about hating the party. I judge which candidate is less likely to step on my rights, spend my tax dollars of frivolus shit, and more likely to do his job. Hillary and Obama are not impressing me much in this regard. Though other democrats in the past have and have earned my vote.

Though a party is a good start to see what a candidate stands for. McCain is actually squarely in the middle of the two parties, but where he differs from Obama and Hillary lean him towards the Republican side of certain issues. And in some cases the Republicans are absolutely correct, same could be said of the Democrats. The point is pick a candidate you think can do the job correctly, even if you think he is a flaming jackass.


On the subject of the health care system, a governements main responsibility is not the healthcare and happiness of the people but rather their safety from attack wheter it be from inside or out and the preservation of our rights. Anything any president does that comes above and beyond that is simply bonus.

As for the nuking of Vietnam, it could be very well that if Nixon had wanted this, (unlikely in the extreme) then it might have very well changed the world for the better. Remember no other country has ever had the guts to drop a nuclear weapon in conflict, not even when they could have concealed it's use. Dropping on in Vietnam could have turned the colossal mistake Kennedy gave us, into at least a draw.

TW Scott,

Stepping on your rights like saying you can't get an abortion, or by spending your tax dollars on a useless war?

A government's function is anything we want it to be, you might want it to be limited to military, but others might want it to take care of their medical expenses, keep the roads paved, keep police public, and many other functions. A president strangely has veto power over the legislative branch so his function is not simply executive action.

If Nixon nuke Vietnam we would likely all be smoldering ashes by now, Nixon had to persuade the Russian into weapons treaties and I don't think that would have gone well if he started nuking groups they were supplying. Kennady did not start the vietnam war and he was continue limited action in it, and it is likely had he not been shot he would have pulled out, Lyndon Johns should take the blame for stepping the war up.

TW Scott,

Stepping on your rights like saying you can't get an abortion, or by spending your tax dollars on a useless war?

The war is far from useless and anyone with even a ounce of foresight can see the grand picture. As for abortion rights, I am for them. I recognize that McCain is just paying lipservice to the religious right. Why? Becuase we have had a Conservative majority in the Supreme Court for a while now and they have NEVER seriously entertained overturning Roe Vs Wade. Why? Becuase it is completely unfeasible to lock up all the women who get abortions every year.

A government's function is anything we want it to be, you might want it to be limited to military, but others might want it to take care of their medical expenses, keep the roads paved, keep police public, and many other functions. A president strangely has veto power over the legislative branch so his function is not simply executive action.


Actually roads and police fall under keeping the citizen safe. Anything beyond the military is just gravy on our mashed potatoes. Great, buit not neccesary. Sure i like the idea of federal assistance programs, but I don't demand them. Why? Becuase I don't want to live in a country that babies me. Also becuase anytime the governement gets it's fingers in something it messes it up.


If Nixon nuke Vietnam we would likely all be smoldering ashes by now, Nixon had to persuade the Russian into weapons treaties and I don't think that would have gone well if he started nuking groups they were supplying. Kennady did not start the vietnam war and he was continue limited action in it, and it is likely had he not been shot he would have pulled out, Lyndon Johns should take the blame for stepping the war up.

Funny, we stepped up operations under Kennedy, not as much as Johnson, but still we did. He never would have pulled us out of there or he would have done it sooner.

As for the Russians supplying Vietnam, incorrect, China was. Russia would have had little problem with a nuke in Vietnam as they were not at all friendly with China's brand of Communism. Hopwever I point out again that no other country has had the guts to drop the bomb since we did. The one country that will use it beside us is currently claming their research is strictly for nuclear power.

don't recall doing that, actually - - -

No, YOU didn't. I was pointing out the fallacy of the original post.

That aside, it's too early to judge the Bush administration's successes. If Iraq turns into a flourishing democracy and becomes a lamp post to other countries in the middle east, then surely history will look more favorably on his administration. Not that I think that this is at all likely, mind you. Example: Teddy Roosevelt. He began the practice of meddling in other countries affairs when it was in America's interest, and by all accounts his was a great presedency.

why am i certain if the poll was everyone thought bush was great. first of polls can be accurate and a good indicator to opinions ideas and consensus on what evidence means. it is a truely naive person who goes its a poll there fore meanless. the census is a type of poll is that bullshit. Why don't you go back to your coloring book in little white padded room so you can get your meds and they real world won't interfer with you silly ideas

Your sense of wit is surpassed only by your uncomparable intelligence...

Though a party is a good start to see what a candidate stands for. McCain is actually squarely in the middle of the two parties, but where he differs from Obama and Hillary lean him towards the Republican side of certain issues. And in some cases the Republicans are absolutely correct, same could be said of the Democrats. The point is pick a candidate you think can do the job correctly, even if you think he is a flaming jackass.

This sort of approach simply isn't allowed on this site. Or rather it isn't allowed by the noisy majority. You must nail your colors to an idealogical mast, preferably theirs, of course, and think the other side to be absolute and utter evil...

Funny, we stepped up operations under Kennedy, not as much as Johnson, but still we did. He never would have pulled us out of there or he would have done it sooner.

Robert McNamara:
Kennedy hadn't said before he died whether, faced with the loss of Vietnam, he would [completely] withdraw; but I believe today that had he faced that choice, he would have withdrawn rather than substitute U.S. combat troops for Vietnamese forces to save South Vietnam. I think he would have concluded that U.S. combat troops could not save Vietnam if Vietnam troops couldn't save it. That was the statement he in effect made publicly before his death, but at that time he hadn't had to choose between losing Vietnam, on the one hand, or putting in U.S. combat troops on the other. Had he faced the decision, I think he would have accepted the loss of Vietnam and refused to put in U.S. combat troops.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/11/interviews/mcnamara/

As for the Russians supplying Vietnam, incorrect, China was. Russia would have had little problem with a nuke in Vietnam as they were not at all friendly with China's brand of Communism. Hopwever I point out again that no other country has had the guts to drop the bomb since we did. The one country that will use it beside us is currently claming their research is strictly for nuclear power.

Wikipedia: From the 1960s to 1975, the Soviet Union was the main supplier of military hardware to North Vietnam. After the latter's victory in the war, it remained the main supplier of equipment to the united Vietnam. The United States had been the primary supplier of equipment to South Vietnam; some of the equipment abandoned by the US Army and Army of the Republic of Vietnam came under control of the communist government in Hanoi.

Its interesting how you associate the decision to use a nuclear weapon with "guts". I view it as no one has been insane enough to use a nuclear weapon since the Soviet Union ended our monopoly on them in 1949.

why am i certain if the poll was everyone thought bush was great. first of polls can be accurate and a good indicator to opinions ideas and consensus on what evidence means. it is a truely naive person who goes its a poll there fore meanless. the census is a type of poll is that bullshit. Why don't you go back to your coloring book in little white padded room so you can get your meds and they real world won't interfer with you silly ideas
Reading this post is like being punched in the face by the internet.

Your sense of wit is surpassed only by your uncomparable intelligence...

wow you understand sarcasim. am i supposed to be impressed?

Reading this post is like being punched in the face by the internet.

whatever. i defend my self when attacked using the tactics used against me.

wow you understand sarcasim. am i supposed to be impressed?

I also understand how to make my points coherently, how to construct an argument, and how to use proper grammar and punctuation...none of which you've displayed thusfar.

Are you going to let iceaura make all of your arguments for you? Perhaps later he (she?) can come over and cut your steak into little pieces, so you don't hurt yourself with the knife.

I also understand how to make my points coherently, how to construct an argument, and how to use proper grammar and punctuation...none of which you've displayed thusfar.

Are you going to let iceaura make all of your arguments for you? Perhaps later he (she?) can come over and cut your steak into little pieces, so you don't hurt yourself with the knife.

? my point is perfectly clear? and i know how to construct an argument but by your polls are bad and wrong with nothing to prove polls are bad and evil and useless. The basis for your whole point is based of a statement with no support. You sound exactly like what you are a raving fanatic not willing to give up beliefs that aren't grounded in reality. When your willing to make a point that is logical and has evidence given than i will take you seriously. You have spent most of your time insulting people which isn't making an argument? your 28 yet you argue like someone half your age.

Lol.

I judge which candidate is less likely to step on my rights, spend my tax dollars of frivolus shit, and more likely to do his job. Hillary and Obama are not impressing me much in this regard. Though other democrats in the past have and have earned my vote.

Though a party is a good start to see what a candidate stands for. McCain is actually squarely in the middle of the two parties, McCain is the most like Reagan of the three - not only in his genial press relations and glamorous second wife, or his vague grasp of things like economics and law and political history coupled with firm, longtime support from various lobbyfolk whose understanding is more particular, or his age and frequent "senior moments",

but in the kinds of people and interests he will bring into the White House.

He's not competent, and he's vulnerable to being used by those who are. Haven't we seen enough of that, with Reagan and now W ?

And how do roads make the list of "defense" goods, while public health does not ?

And how do roads make the list of "defense" goods, while public health does not ?

http://www.tea.army.mil/DODProg/HND/Systems.htm

And how do roads make the list of "defense" goods, while public health does not ?
”
http://www.tea.army.mil/DODProg/HND/Systems.htm I know the rationale, I just don't think it adds up from a citizen's POV.

In the theoretical, "what is a government for" sense.

Now I remember why I don't post in Politics.

Reaganhttp://www.sciforums.com/images/icons/icon13.gif

I dont even think he was capable of dressing himself in the morning. He was just a STOOGE.

Now I remember why I don't post in Politics.

cause you don't what the hell your talking about?

I have to agree, even Nixon had some high points, this was just bad.

It's interesting. I just finished Robert Gates' book, and in it, he says Nixon was the most liberal of all the presidents he worked with (LBJ, Ford, Carter, Reagan and Bush).

This assessment is somewhat born out by his public actions, as he did things other so-called conservatives could never dream of: Arms reductions with the Soviets, opening China, removing the country from the Gold Standard, etc. One wonders what a Nixonian presidency starting in 1961 would have looked like...

And had Nixon not been completely paranoid, had he not "made his bones" in the personal politics of the 1950s when Dirty Tricks was the name of the game, he might very well have been a "great" president, or at least, "greater" than he is remembered today.

But part of being a leader is knowing when to let the experts in their field do their job. He asked the experts in the Pentagon to come up with the best plan they could. If there were documents showing that Carter had stepped in and said, "No, we are going to use Navy helicopters that will need to be refueled on the ground", I'd be much more inclined to blame him for the mission's disastrous failure. The buck may stop at the CINC, but I cannot fault the president for asking the military to do their best to provide him with a rescue plan, and then trusting their judgment that it was the best that could be hoped for on short notice.

Repo Man, you and I are just going to have to diagree. The job of the executive is to effectively manage subordinates. Carter did not manage the Pentagon very well, and W has not done it well either.

As the famous quote goes, "the buck stops here". And if you cannot stand the heat, then you should not be in the kitchen.

Repo Man, you and I are just going to have to diagree. The job of the executive is to effectively manage subordinates. Carter did not manage the Pentagon very well, and W has not done it well either.

As the famous quote goes, "the buck stops here". And if you cannot stand the heat, then you should not be in the kitchen.

My take on Bush II is that he ignored the best advice the Pentagon could give.

A few minutes ago, Abizaid was asked if Gen. Eric Shinseki -- who famously told Congress before the war in Iraq that the military would need "several hundred thousand" troops to secure that nation after major combat operations, only to be slapped down by then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz -- was correct.

"Gen. Shinseki was right that a greater international force contribution -- U.S. force contribution and Iraqi force contribution -- should have been available immediately after major combat operations," Abizaid said.
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2006/11/abizaid_dont_im.html

Both the size of the invasion force, the preparations for an occupation presence, the absence of orders to stop looting, the disbanding of the Iraqi army-- This string of things that have contributed to disorder in postwar Iraq were all specifically prepared for, allowed for, warned about by most of the apparatus of the U.S. government, though somehow not finally connected with the actual plans to go to war. Why?

The answer to what went wrong should occupy scholars for a long time. I think it involves partly the personality of the secretary of defense, with his sort of "live for the moment" existentialism, partly an attitude prevailing in the administration that over the decades. These particular people had grown accustomed to thinking that they were likely to be right, and their critics were likely to be wrong.

[Also], probably the personality of this president-- The evidence seems to be that he was never really exposed to the first level, top-level arguments about what the troop level should be and what the real risks might be. So his personality, and the people supporting him did not really expose him to the decisions he should have had a chance to make.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/invasion/interviews/fallows.html

Rather than listening to the experts in the Pentagon, the civilians in the Bush administration dictated how things were going to work. This was a severe error.

Agree to disagree on Carter and Eagle Claw? I suppose so. After reviewing this (http://www.afa.org/magazine/jan1999/0199desertone.asp) and every other online write up I could find, I still cannot fault Carter for the failure. IMO, it was the best that could be done on short notice, and with the military and equipment that we had at the time.

It's interesting. I just finished Robert Gates' book, and in it, he says Nixon was the most liberal of all the presidents he worked with (LBJ, Ford, Carter, Reagan and Bush).

This assessment is somewhat born out by his public actions, as he did things other so-called conservatives could never dream of: Arms reductions with the Soviets, opening China, removing the country from the Gold Standard, etc. One wonders what a Nixonian presidency starting in 1961 would have looked like...

And had Nixon not been completely paranoid, had he not "made his bones" in the personal politics of the 1950s when Dirty Tricks was the name of the game, he might very well have been a "great" president, or at least, "greater" than he is remembered today.

if my memory served me correctly most of the important enviermentlyy laws got passed under nixon other than watergate he was a pretty good president

And possibly divergent notions of what "liberal" entails. I have never been on, or heard of, a US college campus where the great majority of its faculty in the History department were "liberal" in a sense of the word they themselves would endorse.
They themselves would endorse, what the fuck does that mean? Did you note this:
UCLA. Of the 31 English professors with a registered political affiliation, 29 belong to a party of the left. Of the 56 history professors, 53 belong to the party of the left. Of 13 journalism professors with an affiliation, 12 belong to a party of the left. Of 17 political science professors with a registration, 16 belong to a party of the left. And of the 33 women's studies professors, 31 belong to a party of the left.

What about Cornell University? Of the 12 anthropology professors, 11 are registered to a party of the left. Of 13 economics professors, 10 are with a party of the left. Also on the left, 35 out of 36 English professors. All 29 out of 29 history teachers are registered with a party of the left. Of the 17 political science teachers, 16 registered to the left. Psychology professors totaled 25 to the left out of 26. Sociology managed a 7 registered to the left out of 7. Women's studies was 33 to 0 to the left.

Stanford University? Anthropology, 15 of 16 to the left. Economics, 21 of 28. English, 31 of 33. History, 22 of 24. Political science, 26 of 30. Psychology, 20 of 20. Sociology, 11 of 12. Women's studies, 5 of 5.

Pollster Frank Luntz, last year, surveyed the political affiliations of Ivy League humanities professors. Fifty-seven percent called themselves Democrat, and only 3 percent Republican. http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/elder013003.asp
Every survey I've ever seen of the political affiliation of profs in the US comes out 98% Leftwing.

They themselves would endorse, what the fuck does that mean? Did you note this:

Every survey I've ever seen of the political affiliation of profs in the US comes out 98% Leftwing.

yes but what i have read it is because conservative as a group tend not to go in for whatever reasons. also it depends on how you define left wing

So, no big surprise history profs, or any proofs don't like Bush. That last figure is really striking. The US population in general is split pretty much 50/50 (a one to one ratio) between democrats and republicans, while college profs go democrat by a 19 to 1 ratio! Is it any surprise whatsoever that such an absurdly skewed group would not approve of the performance of any Republican?

Actually, what it says is:

Pollster Frank Luntz, last year, surveyed the political affiliations of Ivy League humanities professors. Fifty-seven percent called themselves Democrat, and only 3 percent Republican.

So, of a very select group of institutions, 57% identify as democrat. That means 43% identify as something else. I wonder what? Though there are precious few parties that would ever view Bush favorably.

As for te general population, it is about 50/50 because the general population is pretty easy to force into two parties, and is fairly ignorant of other political parties. Both republicans and democrats have to do all sorts of contortions to appease their varied constituents.

I wonder if these are the same 61% that don't know Reagan was president.

I'm not sure Reagan did - some dude told him it was part of his movie comeback - and the guys following him round with cameras all the time completed the illusion

I don't particuraly like Bush, but your logic makes sense when you say some people said he wasn't a good president, therefore you're wrong in thinking he's a good president. So what if some people don't like him? That doesn't mean people are wrong in liking president Bush.

I am not a fan of W or his father. W is, in my opinion, basically an incompetent and totally lacking in skills, especially executive skills. But he did do one thing that is worthy of praise, in my opinion, and that is the appointment of Ben S. Bernanke to the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Bernanke has been very innovative and creative in dealing with the recent financial crisis. He is much more reactive than Greenspan ever was, and he has a much better grasp of the economic situation than Greenspan ever had. I am not sure how Bernanke came to the position, maybe it was just shear luck. But it was the one good move I think this administration has made.

They themselves would endorse, what the fuck does that mean? Did you note this: Yeah, I laughed at that. So?

What it means is that historians, as a group, tend to know what "left" and "liberal" and so forth mean, and you obviously have been listening to righty rant media, which is clueless in the matter.

There is no "party of the left" in US national politics. For example, as I have been smilied at before for pointing out to you, the Clintons (along with most of the Dem leadership) were and are to the Right of Nixon on a Left/Right scale. Historians know that kind of stuff.

There are a lot of reasons intelligent,informed people not beholden to corporate or political interests would be reluctant to identify themselves as Republican these past few decades, that have nothing to do with "left" or "liberal" political stances.

Is it any surprise whatsoever that such an absurdly skewed group would not approve of the performance of any Republican?

Should I be surprised at such a sweeping generalization that, because someone is a liberal, they are incapable of viewing history in any rational or objective sense?

Tell me, Madanthonywayne, do you view history to accord with your politics, or do your politics arise out of your perceptions of life and history?

Should I be surprised at such a sweeping generalization that, because someone is a liberal, they are incapable of viewing history in any rational or objective sense?
Should I be surprised at such a sweeping generalization that, because someone is a liberal, they are incapable of viewing history in any rational or objective sense?
Should I be surprised at such a sweeping generalization that any rational or objective sense capable of viewing history is a liberal one?
Tell me, Madanthonywayne, do you view history to accord with your politics, or do your politics arise out of your perceptions of life and history?
Well, if you're any indication...

How about: America needed a president like G. W. Bush, because only a truly moronic president could have sent America Inc. down the tubes in eight years flat.

The world needs the American Empire to fall - Barack, Hillary, or Johnny-come-lastly, can't save it now. W's done too good a hatchet job.

P.S. If you think this post is being deliberately provocative, you're right.

Should I be surprised at such a sweeping generalization that any rational or objective sense capable of viewing history is a liberal one?

You need to do better than a third-rate fallacy.

Should I be surprised at such a sweeping generalization that, because someone is a liberal, they are incapable of viewing history in any rational or objective sense?

How someone rates presidents will certainly be strongly influenced by their politics. Your politics determines what you think the president should do. If you disagree with a given president on every issue, how likely are you to rate his performance highly?
Tell me, Madanthonywayne, do you view history to accord with your politics, or do your politics arise out of your perceptions of life and history?My politics arise out of my views on philosophy and the nature of man. Do my politics affect my interpretation of history? Of course. But the views on which my politics are based are also strongly influenced by my knowledge of history.

My politics arise out of my views on philosophy and the nature of man.

This notion is one I understand, but is that outlook a result of or despite what history tells us about the nature of man?

Do my politics affect my interpretation of history? Of course. But the views on which my politics are based are also strongly influenced by my knowledge of history.

Beyond that, it's all a matter of how you choose to view history, and what you decide is important. How do you decide what's important? Do we tie ourselves in knots to complete the circle?

How someone rates presidents will certainly be strongly influenced by their politics. Your politics determines what you think the president should do. If you disagree with a given president on every issue, how likely are you to rate his performance highly?

I admit I'm hard-pressed to find the upshot of lying to the world in order to start a war. Or the good side of lying to the people in order to grotesquely increase executive power and upset the so-called checks and balances of our government, but here's the thing: Who the hell am I to say the new balance of power is bad? Who the hell am I to say that lying is bad? It's just my liberal bias, in other words, that looks at the potential of a New American Century spent at war, that looks at spiraling energy prices, a reeling economy, and hemorrhaging American prestige as bad outcomes of a presidency.

Quite obviously, I'm being unreasonable, then, to wonder if there's not something suspect about the need to redefine over two centuries of developing American principle in order to justify a president. Without a doubt, it is only the academic bias that only liberals are capable of, that would suggest the damage done to this nation by this president is greater than the damage done to the Republic when Jefferson acquired the Louisiana Purchase or Lincoln retained the South.

Do I have that correctly?

The truth of the matter is that there are plenty of arguments to be had. But disqualifying the liberals from having a valid opinion because they are liberals? That's just desperate.

Beyond that, it's all a matter of how you choose to view history, and what you decide is important. How do you decide what's important? Do we tie ourselves in knots to complete the circle?Well, you're the one who asked the question!
The truth of the matter is that there are plenty of arguments to be had. But disqualifying the liberals from having a valid opinion because they are liberals? That's just desperateThe point is, it's too soon for "historians" to pass judgment on the Bush administration. They're too caught up in the passions of the day. Their judgment is clouded by their politics and by being too close to the situation. In 20 or 30 years historians will pass judgment based on a cool, dispassionate review of the actions of the Bush administration and their results.

So I'm not really saying that liberals don't get an opinion. I'm saying that what they say now is not really their judgment as historians, it's their judgment as partisans. As people involved in the story.

Beyond that, it's all a matter of how you choose to view history, and what you decide is important. How do you decide what's important? Do we tie ourselves in knots to complete the circle?Well, you're the one who asked the question!
The truth of the matter is that there are plenty of arguments to be had. But disqualifying the liberals from having a valid opinion because they are liberals? That's just desperateThe point is, it's too soon for "historians" to pass judgment on the Bush administration. They're too caught up in the passions of the day. Their judgment is clouded by their politics and by being too close to the situation. In 20 or 30 years historians will pass judgment based on a cool, dispassionate review of the actions of the Bush administration and their results.

So I'm not really saying that liberals don't get an opinion. I'm saying that what they say now is not really their judgment as historians, it's their judgment as partisans. As people involved in the story. Given that, it's not at all surprising that they rate Bush poorly.

You need to do better than a third-rate fallacy.
You need a better than third-rate fallacy for me to comment on.

I admit I'm hard-pressed to find the upshot of lying to the world in order to start a war. Or the good side of lying to the people in order to grotesquely increase executive power and upset the so-called checks and balances of our government, but here's the thing: Who the hell am I to say the new balance of power is bad? Who the hell am I to say that lying is bad? It's just my liberal bias, in other words, that looks at the potential of a New American Century spent at war, that looks at spiraling energy prices, a reeling economy, and hemorrhaging American prestige as bad outcomes of a presidency.
9/11 was sufficient additional provocation for lethally engaging the war.

You being hard-pressed to catch on isn't our burden.