and dismiss them as anti-american islamofascist french loving traitors?
2007-01-10 08:20:09 · 11 answers · asked by bush deathgrip 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
History will prove that George W. Bush was the right man for for the country. He could never be rated worse than Carter or Slick Willy.
2007-01-10 08:26:44 · answer #1 · answered by slodana2003 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
before everything, no they don't. i'm going to get to that throughout a minute. Am I a Bush fan? No. yet i think of Andrew Jackson replaced into the worst president ever. He massacred community human beings (seem up the "path of Tears"), he married a woman who replaced into nevertheless married to her first husband on the time, he replaced into properly-known for dueling, and he replaced into usually in simple terms a super jerk. And this? "a recent casual, unscientific survey of historians carried out at my suggestion with the aid of George Mason college’s historic past information community got here across that 8 in ten historians responding value the present presidency an basic failure" ....is an casual, unscientific survey. permit's not play video games with semantics. What your source shows isn't that "eighty one% of historians think of he's the worst president ever." this is an unscientific survey carried out with the aid of a small company whose concentration isn't on scholarly study. the 2d article is written with the aid of and a pair of single historian. Neither helps the declare that eighty one% of all historians think of he's the worst ever.
2016-10-30 13:41:42 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I dont think historians will see Bush as the worst President in US history. There are far better candidates, like Warren G. Harding. I also don't think Bush will be looked at as one of the best Presidents either. FDR, Lincoln, and Washington set the bar pretty high.
2007-01-10 08:23:33 · answer #3 · answered by msi_cord 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
How could historians comment on the Bush presidency while he's still in office?
It takes quite a few years to be able to view things objectively and nobody yet knows how things will turn out in Iraq.
2007-01-10 08:24:24 · answer #4 · answered by Sean 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Depends on the historian. Like any other group of people, historians have their nuts, too. If you're talking anti-American nut jobs like Ward Churchill, then yes, I would dismiss a lunatic like him.
2007-01-10 08:24:54 · answer #5 · answered by Jadis 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I hate Bush, he is in my opinion doing a very poor job, but he will not likely ever be looked at as the worst. Not even the worst of the modern era, Nixon still gets him there.
What about Jackson and the genocide of the American Indians?
He is probably the worst ever.
2007-01-10 08:25:33 · answer #6 · answered by vertical732 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
The historians are probably learned people therefore democrat ,therefore terrorists and not worthy of recording the poop cycles of fruit flies.
Its all clintons fault
2007-01-10 08:27:31 · answer #7 · answered by Charles Dobson Focus on the Fam 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Both would be wrong since Dictator Dumbya was NEVER elected. Down with Dictator Dumbya!!!
2007-01-10 09:45:04 · answer #8 · answered by rhino9joe 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think the proper term is "University Beard Scratcher".
2007-01-10 08:27:49 · answer #9 · answered by MoltarRocks 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I'm betting its going to be the other way. Let's just wait and see shall we?
2007-01-10 08:24:22 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋