Personal judgments are fine. We all make ‘em. But it’s too soon to say there is anything approaching a conclusive take on W’s presidency. Presidential administrations’ places in history are complex. Lots of moving parts, lots of complicated variables, lots of policy decisions with long tails on 'em. Sorry, that’s just the way it is.
For a realistic assessment of his impact? I’d guess sometime in the post-war years, possibly after the trails…certainly after the extent of things like the Holocaust, and the damage and lives lost could be fully assessed. Then, say, a decade or two to see how the events sparked by Hitler in the early 30’s impacted later history (things like the formation of the state of Israel and ITS impact, possibly the Cold War especially the events centering around Berlin, etc).
I certainly don’t think any meaningful assessment of Hitler and his impact could have (or should have) been attempted in, say, 1939 (IIRC that would be about 5 years after he first came to power…could be off a year I’m at work and doing this from memory).
And by and large I agree…they ARE the experts after all. I just think that such things need to be presented not as fact (or skewed in such a way as to give more weight than the data available should give it) but as informed speculation. Thats how I saw it anyway.
-XT
OK, that I can agree with. Historians making opinions, based on whatever they know, using whatever historical info they used.
IMHO a better analogy would be doing so in 1943, say. The ultimate conclusion hasn’t happened, but he’s already done so much damage that giving him a thumbs down is an easy choice.
Not matter what I type here, you will discount it… why bother.
Check the Iraq Index at Brookings… there is improvement.
The economic indicators are everywhere you look, but if
you want to be ‘caught dead’ check out http://www.rpof.org/fastfacts/economy/1996_2004.php
Kevlaur
I said it before:
I find it hard to give credit to guys who do things on credit.
Especially guys that don’t pay for their actions, Iraq will remain his biggest mistake followed by the ongoing inept response to Katrina.
“At what point did it become possible to evaluate Hitler’s impact?”
Well thats a good example really - in his first years of rule do you think anyone would have realised he was going to end up where he did?
And if we’d evaluated his impact at say just after Dunkirk what conclusions might we have drawn compared to say 5 years later?
We were in a position to say he wasnt a very nice guy pretty early on and a threat to Europe but the entire scope of his impact and the resulting outcome wasnt really able to be evaluated until a fair way down the track. I doubt many people thought at that stage we’d still be talking about the holocaust 60 years later for instance.
In his case it turned out to be far more negative than we might have expected. In Bush’s case is possible (although in my view unlikely) that what he’s done could end up being more successful than one might expect. It all depends on the longer term impact of some of the actions involved.
Otara
Pardon me? I believe it was President Buchanan who watched South Carolina and six other states secede from the Union, allowed the formation of the CSA, and did nothing to prevent the seizue of all but two or three federal arsenals and forts in the south. The first shots of the war came immediately after his innauguration. The nation had already split before Lincoln came to power. Criticize his conduct of the war all you want, but he inherited the Civil War.
I think Bush himself sheds interesting light on his “accomplishments.” After five years in office, what was his very best accomplishment? It was catching a big perch!
If the best thing you can say about your own presidency is that you caught a big perch in your own lake, then it’s no wonder that many of us regard him as the worst.
Say, was this happening a lot to you during the Clinton years? No wonder you are such a big Bush backer! :rolleyes:
I must say, if Bush passes the Emancipation Proclamation* in his last year of office, I might consider supporting him.
*Or, its modern equivalent. Perhaps legalising gay marriage, and telling the Southern states to go jump in an ocean?
Could we perhaps agree that, at this point, judging Bush’s legacy is difficult, if not impossible- but that juding his performance is possible? Of course, what you think of that performance is a whole 'nother story.
There’s one problem with this: The world record catch for a perch is 4.3 pounds.
Now the interview was with a German paper and it had to be translated, so there’s still a possibility of a misunderstanding, but that doesn’t seem like something that would get messed up in that process.
3.5lb perch - got called kilos and voila.
Otara
We talk about that stuff right here. You think we can get paid to do it? 
“…or maybe a fish tank; I haven’t decided yet.”
During the last meet of the X-presidents they asked them what was their greatest achievement during the presidency.
Carter said: “The camp David accord”.
Reagan: “Negotiating with the USSR while at the same time finishing them off elsewhere, and Teflon.”
Bush Senior: “New World Order and Pardons.”
Clinton: “The resolution of the Kosovo crisis.”
Today they asked G.W.Bush what it was so far.
“One time I caught a fish this big!”
How come these things always involve telling the Southern states to go jump in an ocean?
Because they’re the ones dragging the nation’s collective IQ down?