NYT: 1.8% of Historians polled believe W presidency a success:

[speeder]

This would be hilarious if it wasn't so tragic. If only the whole thing was just a SNL sketch or something.

http://theboard.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/the-bush-presidency-the-historians-start-to-weigh-in/

[Joeaksa]

Yes it is hilarious that ANYONE even reads the NYT these days. They are so FOS and biased these days that its simply a waste of time for 70% of us these days but glad that it keeps you entertained.

When you find a non-propaganda source of information, please let us know.

[speeder]

I disagree, Wayne. What it has "told the rest of the world" is that the U.S.A. is incredibly fallible and subject to making huge mistakes that will cost us our place in the world. We've squandered our chance to fight other wars in the foreseeable future and the rest of the world knows it. They are not stupid. We've tipped our hand, and it's a loser. Thanks a lot, Bush/Cheney.

[fintstone]

+1...Hard to deny our military's ability to kick butt when unleashed. Playing policeman is just difficult...especially with so many in this country pulling against us.

[Joeaksa]

Originally Posted by speeder

I disagree, Wayne. What it has "told the rest of the world" is that the U.S.A. is incredibly fallible and subject to making huge mistakes that will cost us our place in the world. We've squandered our chance to fight other wars in the foreseeable future and the rest of the world knows it. They are not stupid. We've tipped our hand, and it's a loser. Thanks a lot, Bush/Cheney.

Dennis,

Sorry but agree with Wayne and the others. Your USA may be fallible but mine is not.

Squandered nothing. Please Dennis, you are not current or ex-military and not really an expert at this, so please leave this stuff up to people who have a bit of experience in this field!

Our military was GUTTED by the Clinton admin, so please give thanks to them first! Then we have the worthless Prez Carter who shoots our country in the foot at every chance.

Wayne, pls put Dennis to work on the Wiki project so that he stays busy and does not read the NYT so much in the future!

[speeder]

Hey, it's a survey of 109 actual historians, not an op-ed piece in the NYT. (Other than the fact that they chose to report it, obviously). Don't shoot the messenger!

Probably won't see this on Faux News, so I just wanted to make sure that you guys didn't miss it. They're trying to figure out what the 1.8% are thinking, maybe they could study this board for some point of reference.

[rennch]

I've read that too. I'm still amazed by the blinders that some people have in the name of their particular political party. I think it's easy to say "oh, you didn't join the military, so you don't have a say...". Wrong. I live in this country, and my vote tells me I have a say.

On that note, however, I know probably 20 or so Iraq (1 and 2) vets, and not a SINGLE one supports W any longer, or can reasonably admit that he did a good job in office.

As for how long it's been since we had a terrorist attack on US Soil....how many have we had, period, in the last 20 years or so? I think in the grand scheme, we do a pretty good job preventing those kinds of things, don't we?

[Joeaksa]

I never said that someone did not have a say in this country but please do not try to appear to be an expert on defense or military ops if you have no experience in the area. I suppose that you and Dennis are both experts as well on heart transplants or lunar rockets because you read about it in the NYT while staying in a Holiday Inn Express last night?

Most of us could care less how you feel about President Bush, and taking a poll of vets in tree huggerville is hardly a sample of the vets in this country.

As far as terrorist attacks... now you are an expert on terrorism as well? How many attacks have been stopped that the public did not know about? How many have been stopped that the public DID know about? The reason why we have been able stop the potential terrorist attacks before they happened is a lot of luck and in many cases pushing the boundaries in several areas.

English intel (MI5) says that they are currently watching 1600 terrorist groups in their country alone. If a country of that size has 1600 groups UNDER INVESTIGATION, how many exist that the MI5 does not know about and how many are in America right now, ready to strike and waiting for the signal?

Hopefully you will wake up before its too late, but there is a big one coming and may bite all of us on the rear no matter what we do. Only good part is that it may shut down the NYT...

[K. Roman]

Is it really so black and white? Republicans did everything right and Dems did everything wrong? That's the way the US works? So by that logic the GOP should just own the earth.

[frogger]

Originally Posted by K. Roman

Is it really so black and white? Republicans did everything right and Dems did everything wrong? That's the way the US works? So by that logic the GOP should just own the earth.

Shhh! That plan is a secret!

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally Posted by Wayne at Pelican Parts

I don't like Bush like the rest of everyone else, but I think that in 10-20 years, he will be given much more credit with the war on terror than is given now. As misguided as the Iraq war has seemed, it really was a monumental response to 9/11, and has basically told the rest of the world, "dont F with us, or we'll invade your country." This is a rather big deterrent to terrorism.

-Wayne

Terrorists have countries?

[IROC]

Originally Posted by Shaun 84 Targa

Terrorists have countries?

Exactly. Attacking a country in response to an ideology is a futile exercise. That's one lesson I hope we've learned.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

The war in Iraq had NOTHING whatsoever to do with the so-called "war on terror".

We should have stuck to Afghanistan and isolated actions where necessary to root out and destroy terror cells.

The war in I-wreck is a mistake, will always be a mistake and will always be viewed as a mistake in the court of historical opinion.

We've wasted our chance and opportunity to fight a major campaign if we need to. If Al Qaeda found sanctuary in Jordan or Qatar or Iran tomorrow, we'd be unable to mount the same response to "the nations that harbor them" that we did to Afghanistan. We don't have the resources for it. We don't have the stomach for it and we DEFINITELY don't have the money for it. When Bush said, "we will make no distinction between terrorist organizations and the nations who harbor them", that was actually the correct call. Bush got that one right. Afghanistan was the right response. Iraq was completely and totally unrelated and, much as the warmongers and historical revisionists want, there IS NOT and WAS NEVER a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

Our military is strong, yes - but is also stretched pretty thin, beaten down, tired and certainly out of money. We are in debt up to our arses because of this stupid war, and there is no benefit from it - tangible or intangible, that will adequately pay back the taxpayers of the U.S. for their huge investment, in terms of money and their sons'/daughters' lives.

Also, one has to ask the question - if the role of the military is to PROTECT and DEFEND the United States, why are we off screwing around invading sovereign countries while millions of invaders (each one a potential terrorist) stroll across our borders daily, unchecked. The biggest foreign threats to our country right now are not bombs or guns or even terrorists, it's economic sabotage. OBL is beating us, and our ham-fisted actions are letting the Mexicans and Chinese do it for him - unintentionally perhaps, but they're slowly bringing the U.S. economy to its knees nonetheless.

We should pull the hell out of Iraq, leave it to whatever fate it will inevitably find anyway, re-task our military to DEFENDING this country against foreign invaders and focus on ways to economically shore up ourselves against the constant attacks undermining it. Standing on an aircraft carrier puffing one's chest up under a banner reading "Mission Accomplished" (before some 3,000 more service personnel die) while the domestic situation continues circling the drain does little to inspire me or to assure me that my government "gets it". They don't. And for one, I'm getting awfully sick of funding their ineptitude and stupidity.

[The Gaijin]

I thought historians dealt in history? We are still in the Bush presidency.

Why don't they stick to Chester Arthur or somebody?

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally Posted by The Gaijin

I thought historians dealt in history? We are still in the Bush presidency.

Why don't they stick to Chester Arthur or somebody?

What's a better and more accurate way of writing history?

1. Interviewing the architects and builders of the ancient Egyptian pyramids while they are being constructed?

2. Using educated guesses 2000 years later?

[The Gaijin]

Originally Posted by Shaun 84 Targa

What's a better and more accurate way of writing history?

1. Interviewing the architects and builders of the ancient Egyptian pyramids while they are being constructed?

2. Using educated guesses 2000 years later?

But if your "historians" are only interviewing quarrymen, they wont get the full story. It may take a while to really figure out what the stone masons have been up to...

The best we can hope for right now is a bunch of sociologists explaining Obama's appeal, Hillary's survival and Bush as the root-of-all-evil syndrome.

Other than that, only time will tell.

[72doug2,2S]

Originally Posted by Shaun 84 Targa

What's a better and more accurate way of writing history?

1. Interviewing the architects and builders of the ancient Egyptian pyramids while they are being constructed?

2. Using educated guesses 2000 years later?

The blog says that 98.2% reported as a failure, but isn't it more likely that 98.2% said it was premature to discuss the result while not all the relevant facts are in.

Even if they said it was a failure, I'm not sure I even understand the question. Was there a time line Bush committed to and failed? The answer is no. What criteria defines success and does not allow for a "work in progress?" I guess set-backs and unforeseen challenges equate to failure. Is it so unreasonable to suggest historians wait to see the end?

Wouldn't it be better still to have the real information to draw upon? The classified information takes 50 years before it is available. By that time at least the dust on this era will have settled.

[Rot 911]

How many presidents at the end of their terms were unpopular, but later historical views changed? Harry Truman comes to mind.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Bush is very popular with millions of illegals who were able to enter and stay here without repercussions on his watch.

[kach22i]

Originally Posted by speeder

This would be hilarious if it wasn't so tragic. If only the whole thing was just a SNL sketch or something.

http://theboard.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/the-bush-presidency-the-historians-start-to-weigh-in/

The world is going to end in 2012, so who cares.