There is plenty of speculation out there, and I could list all the sources in the liberal blogosphere that would agree that this title fits Mr. Bush without doubt.
Rarely have we seen this kind of writing: Wapo Opinion page
Move Over, Hoover
By Douglas Brinkley
Sunday, December 3, 2006; Page B01
Shortly after Thanksgiving I had dinner in California with Ronald Reagan's best biographer, Lou Cannon. Like many historians these days, we discussed whether George W. Bush is, conceivably, the worst U.S. president ever. Cannon bristled at the idea.
I'll provide a few more interesting nuggets if you'll please stay with me:
Bush has two more years to leave his mark, he argued. What if there is a news flash that U.S. Special Forces have killed Osama bin Laden or that North Korea has renounced its nuclear program? What if a decade from now Iraq is a democracy and a statue of Bush is erected on Firdaus Square where that famously toppled one of Saddam Hussein once stood?
Is that what it will take to alleviate the stain of Hoover from Mr. Bush's legacy? Will Jenna and Barbara live to see their father vindicated from his responsibility in killing all those people?
The guy that got absolutely everything wrong concerning this war, from the justification to the outcome, including troop forces and the absence of a flowery welcome. Mr. Bush has "hung his hat" on the war in Iraq for his own posterity, and has once again failed miserably at his goals. How does he sleep at night?
The problem for Bush is that certitude is only a virtue if the policy enacted is proven correct. Most Americans applaud Truman's dropping of bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki because they achieved the desired effect: Japan surrendered. Reagan's anti-communist zeal -- including increased defense budgets and Star Wars -- is only now perceived as positive because the Soviet Union started to unravel on his watch.
Apparently, when it comes to historical perspectives, the ends justifies the means. And the Iraq debacle does not appear to be ending well, and will no doubt NOT justify the means. Therefore, Mr. Bush has two years left to convince America, and the historians, that he accomplished something.
The most damning part of this article I have saved for last. It suggests that choices were made between New Orleans and Iraq, and Iraq won that rock paper scissors decision.
At first, you'd want to compare Bush's Iraq predicament to that of Lyndon B. Johnson during the Vietnam War. But LBJ had major domestic accomplishments to boast about when leaving the White House, such as the Civil Rights Act and Medicare/Medicaid. Bush has virtually none. Look at how he dealt with the biggest post-9/11 domestic crisis of his tenure. He didn't rush to help the Gulf region after Hurricane Katrina because the country was overextended in Iraq and had a massive budget deficit. Texas conservatives always say that LBJ's biggest mistake was thinking that he could fund both the Great Society and Vietnam. They believe he had to choose one or the other. They call Johnson fiscally irresponsible. Bush learned this lesson: He chose Iraq over New Orleans.
So Bush's legacy hinges on Iraq, which is an unmitigated disaster. Instead of being forgiven, like Polk and McKinley, for his phony pretext for war (WMD and al-Qaeda operatives in Baghdad), he stands to be lambasted by future scholars. What once were his two best sound bites -- "Wanted dead or alive" and "Mission accomplished" -- will be used like billy clubs to shatter his legacy every time it gets a revisionist lift. The left will keep battering him for warmongering while the right will remember its outrage that he didn't send enough battalions to Iraq.
I was toying with the idea of including a poll here, but I think we would get 100% voting on "WORST PRESIDENT EVER".