[Cowperson]

Although I remain a supporter of the decisions to go to Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts, I said before Bush's first term I wouldn't have voted for him if I had the opportunity and also said in 2003, in spite of my support for Iraq, that Bush needed to be voted out of office.

Some find that contradictory but its not and my comments on the matter have been consistent since 2000 in this forum.

The same ideology that I favoured - and continue to favour - in getting into Afghanistan and Iraq is also the same ideology that led to failures in prosecuting the aftermath and continues to delay the eventual and inevitable withdrawal, something I said here last year. Only the falling polls have triggered the move to bring USA troop levels below 100,000 by Congressional elections in the Fall.

My comment above is illustrated in this paragraph from the Rolling Stone story:

he has also displayed a weakness common among the greatest presidential failures -- an unswerving adherence to a simplistic ideology that abjures deviation from dogma as heresy, thus preventing any pragmatic adjustment to changing realities.

Even at that Bush might still be above 50% in the polls if not for all the other goofy stuff that has happened, on extraordinarily leaky immigration that can only lead to a crisis, on the continuing massive holes that still exist on homeland security five years after 9/11, on the continuing appalling stumbles, massive deficits ala Reagan and human misery and lack of progress on property damage we still see one year after Katrina . . . as obvious examples.

The blurring of the line between separation of church and state was the origin of my original objections to his election.

On the other hand, after a brief flirtation with the more extreme fringes of the right wing in America, we'll likely see a welcome swing back towards the center in Congressional elections this Fall . . . . a benefit at least.

Having said all of that, one must concede that Bush is a TWO term President, that he stood before the electorate and passed a referendum on his record, even if the populace now regrets their decision only a year and a half later.

As such, I'd put Bush behind Jimmy Carter as the worst President in my lifetime . . . . . if anyone was around in that period you'd remember Carter left a country in 1980 that was in a profound state of depression, certainly a mood worse than he inherited even in the aftermath of Vietnam, heading into a massive recession after being held hostage by a punk Iran, all overhanging issues in no small part due to his own lack of leadership and vision.

I'm a little surprised the Rolling Stone article scarcely mentions Carter. in fact, in skimming it, I didn't see him mentioned at all.

And, actually, if we were really thinking about things, we might name one of the most popular Presidents in USA history, Ronald Reagan, as one of the worst in history considering the massive deficits and inflation he left behind - which led to big problems later - as well as his descent into Alzheimer's while still in office.

Nixon actually got America out of Vietnam, opened dialogue with China, negotiated missile treaties with the Soviet Union, and his term was also, generally, a prosperous one for America . . . . . although war is always prosperous and the stock market fell 50%, I believe, in his last year in office when government stop paying for conflict.

Is it all about popularity?

My thoughts.

Cowperson