In an informal survey of 109 professional historians conducted over a three-week period through the History News Network, 98.2 percent assessed the presidency of Mr. Bush to be a failure while 1.8 percent classified it as a success.
That sounds like about 2 out 109 historians with no sense of history.
One statement amongst several:
“George Bush has combined mediocrity with malevolent policies and has thus seriously damaged the welfare and standing of the United States,” wrote one of the historians, echoing the assessments of many of his professional colleagues. “Bush does only two things well,” said one of the most distinguished historians. “He knows how to make the very rich very much richer, and he has an amazing talent for f**king up everything else he even approaches. His administration has been the most reckless, dangerous, irresponsible, mendacious, arrogant, self-righteous, incompetent, and deeply corrupt one in all of American history.”
I've said almost the exact same things many times without even knowing I'm a historian. Damn, I'm good!
Note to self: Calm down, self. It don't take no rocket scientist to realize the truth about Bush, just functioning eyes and ears hooked to a minimal brain. Which you've got.