As the Iraq war continues and the losses mount, the dollar de-values,
the deficits (budget and trade) skyrocket, the military
deteriorates...--twenty years from now, will we be arguing whether
Bush was the worst president ever or of just the last hundred years or
so?

JD, 

History, as you probably know, is written by the victors. There is no
"neutral" history. The legacy of Bush in the future is set by the
people who would evaluate him, who would have their own perspective -
based on future events (and on who would pay their bread, so to speak)
- on his accomplishments. You can think about many historical figures
that are either considered "bad rulers" or "good rulers" (Lincoln,
Stalin, etc.) and consider, what could have changed in history if
their "side" had "won" or "lose".

History books written in communist countries before de-stalinisation
is considered today to be rubbish. Not so, had the Stalin legacy
remained and "took over" the world (horrid thought...)

I think Politicalguru was referring to what I remember as 'Androcles and the Lion'

Some guy and a lion were ambling around and saw a sculptor finishing
off a statue of Androcles duffing up a Lion.
- The Lion turned round and said :-
     'that would look different if the Lion had won'

In the case of Bush and Iraq, my hunch is that it will go down as 
  a mistake, 
  a big mistake 
  or a pivotal mistake

The best I can see, and I see signs of it, is partitioning Iraq and getting out.

As for the Dollar and the deficits, who cares ?
They are someone else's problem

jd,
I'm interested to know in what capacity were you in Iraq?
ts

Nixon did a lot of good, but a few missteps cost him the presidency
and his legacy.  Bush has done little good and will be considered by
future generations as worse than Nixon (probably even Hoover).

Military.

JD, 

I am sorry if you found PinkFreud's comment "devoid of thought" and
knee-jerk. I am opposing her views on this subject (regarding Iraq,
and in fact, I guess that we also differ on economic policy and other
issues). I am sure she didn't mean to offend anyone.

Nevertheless, I agree that people change their minds and political
opinions and look at history different. You probably heard the phrase
that those who are not socialists when they are in their twenties have
no heart, while those who are still socialists in their forties have
no head [I probably have no head, so you can disregard my comments
altogether]. Times change our perspective on things, and many people
mellow and change their views.

[On a slightly unrelated note, while looking for the origin of the
phrase, I found this site, listing many, to whom the sentence have
been attributed:
Mark T. Shirey, Unquote <http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5952/unquote.html>

Shirey found the earliest version to be attributed to mid-nineteenth
century historian and statesman Fran?ois Guizot:
   Not to be a republican at 20 is proof of want of heart;
   to be one at 30 is proof of want of head.: 

Guizot of course meant "Republican" as a person who believes in a
republic (as opposed to monarchy). This was all very nice in the 19th
century. Now, find me someone - not in "want of head" - who supports
absolute monarchy. Yes, times are a changin', and maybe in 100 years,
when we will all be Borg, Bush wouldn't matter much.

Fret not ... All is now explained:

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=450239

It's not just Bush the man, it's the Republican agenda that's so hair-raising . . .
its' the trend, not the individual . . .

For what it's worth, I will recommend - again - this book:

The New Pearl Harbor by David R. Griffin
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1566565529/qid=1104686104/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/102-6224818-6977768

here's a short review from Amazon:

quote <Until reading this book I have despised any conspiracy theory
that involved persons in any American administration doing harm to
their fellow Americans.  But Dr. Griffin, a noted professor at the
prestigious Claremont School of Theology, has written a dispassionate
study of the many inconsistencies that are involved in the official
version of what happened on 9/11, our surveillance of Middle Eastern
terrorist networks before that time, and our pursuit of the true
perpetrators since then.  For example, when Flight 11's transponder
went off at 8:20 a.m. and flight attendants reported at 8:21 a.m. that
it had been hijacked when it turned 90 degrees to the south, F-16's
are routinely supposed to scramble and head it off within ten
minutes--long before it reached the North Tower.  There is an average
of 100 scramblings per year.  We went zero for three on 9/11.  How
could we not protect against a plane going directly towards the
Pentagon or the White House?  One starts this book, wanting with all
one's heart to believe that it was incompetence or surprise that day,
but there are just too many other really strange things (about twenty
more) noted by Griffin that warrant an even more complete
investigation than what is going on now (April 2).  Why?  Because a
lot of these elements, briefly captured by one media source or
another, were swept away in our focus on the war and not brought back
into the national consciousness.  I must agree with the professor who
wrote that "it is rare, indeed, that a book has this potential to
become a force of history."  This slim book is a MUST READ! > end
quote

2 cents

ts

Here's another tidbit from a hothead lefty site and plays right into
the aforementioned book:

http://www.bluelemur.com/index.php?p=517

ts

This is a conspiracy site?  Please.  Never seek conspiracy where
normal incompetence provides the answers.  The problem with
conspiracies is that people are simply incapable of shutting up over
the long haul.  Especially when the number of participants has to be
large and the rewards in either fame, notoriety, or money are easily
attainable.  In science, it's called, I believe, Occam's Razor.  And I
didn't "find" her comments "devoid of thought and knee-jerk"--they
simply were.  Sometimes perception and reality match.  Rush on the
radio is painful--warmed-over Rush disguised as thought is unbearable.
 Only the serious kool-aid drinkers still think the current
administration has our country on the right track.

Yeah, I know, you think I'm a conspiracy nut . . . ah, well . . .

<"Never seek conspiracy where normal incompetence provides the answers.">

Okay, forget about Blue Lemur . . . 
but still, read the book . . . and weep . . .

"normal incompetence" has provided no answers in this case, I think

in fact, when it comes to 9/11, the VERY abnormal incompetence on the
part of NORAD should have raised many more questions than it did (and
then there are those twenty other points that need looking at too . .
.)

I looked up Occam's Razor: "one should not make more assumptions than
the minimum needed".  William of Occam "admonishes us to choose from a
set of otherwise equivalent models of a given phenomenon the simplest
one. In any given model, Occam's razor helps us to "shave off" those
concepts, variables or constructs that are not really needed to
explain the phenomenon. By doing that, developing the model will
become much easier, and there is less chance of introducing
inconsistencies, ambiguities and redundancies."

I think W. of Occam wouldn't have gotten very far with present day
quantum physics . . . which is rife with inconsistencies, ambiguities
and unexplainable events.

But . . . instead of thinking 'pure science', think 'criminal
investigation' which has so many human elements to it that it couldn't
possibly be a pure science . A good investigator MUST be adept at
making all sorts of assumptions and considering a variety of scenarios
(and be just as willing and ready to let them go) lest the wrong
people get blamed.  In general, especially when the issue involves
deeply-held values and beliefs (patriotism, wanting to feel that the
government actually cares about us) people want the easiest answer to
hold on to so they don't have to consider what may be a painful and
shocking possibility.

doubly true for those in the military who have offered their very
lives in service of country

I don't claim to know nuttin' . . . it's just still a VERY open question for me.

I hope you will find that book and read it; then let's talk . . .

for now, I'll shut up  :-)

ts

No of course he isn?t the worst president ever. When you hit the
basement there ain?t no further to go. He?s in the heap on the floor.
This is the overwhelming (world) majority view.

BTW, our (Scotland) First Minister is an ignorant, sycophantic, naff
wee bauchle and used to play with girls because the boys wouldn?t play
with him. So The States hasn?t got the monopoly. And Berlusconi, wow!
Etc etc.

Best

Reminds me of the liberals during the 80's talking of Reagan and how
his legacy was going to be as the worst president in history. Didn't
quite work out like that did it?

To begin with, some of your assumptions are wrong. For example, the
deficit is getting smaller, apparently:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/larrykudlow/lk20050113.shtml  And
many economists argue that the dollar de-value (at the current rate)
isn't going to hurt the U.S. So...I guess we'll just have to wait and
see.

Kriswrite

hi jd,

I thought this might be of interest to you:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/021505J.shtml

best,

ts

Answer.  In 20 years, it will be established fact.