Are you saying you're too stupid to read, since the author said that's how historians will judge President Bush. The writer isn't saying that's his assessment--but that he does understand why he will rank so low.
While I don't think Bush is the worst, I agree that historians might very well judge him that way. He certainly is not a conservative and has damaged conservatism and this nation far more than we would have hoped ...though anyone paying attention should have realized the game he has played.
When all the evidence is in, I think historians will agree with Princeton’s Sean Wilentz, who wrote a carefully argued article judging Bush to have been the worst president in American history.
No Gondring, it is weasel words. He is using historians to project his own opinion because he hasn't the balls to say it for himself.
You are obviously the one with the reading comprehension problem.
...though anyone paying attention should have realized the game he has played.Was part of his game to make you go barking mad and post drivel to right-wing websites?
Yes, I'm too stupid to read. Just as you are too stupid to see that saying historian will judge someone in some way, is a judgement statement by the author, not fact. And it definitely is NOT fact.
And judge GW any way you want to, but if you rank him near the bottom, then you have forgotten all of his conservative accomplishments, for reasons of your own. Despite his failings, he's been one of our very best presidents, and if I disagree with him on some issues, I agree with him on most. If you think he's betrayed conservatism somehow, I think you are being too harsh. He's compromised too much in some ways, but held his ground in many others, and you withhold credit unfairly.