Reagan knew whereof he spoke concerning W.

I liked Ronald Reagan - I still do. Yes, he trashed our economy. Yes, he trampled on education, the media, and the environment, and he would be considered a terrible president, except for two things: he won the Cold War (remember the duck-and-cover drills in school? No? These were safety drills for nuclear attacks. Reagan ended the need for them.), and he made us proud to be Americans once more. The Cold War threatened all life on earth, people - and I credit him for ending that threat. For all that he did that was wrong, I, a liberal progressive Democrat, will always consider him as one of our best presidents.

Reagan was a smart man - and he knew a waste of time when he saw it. The below is from his memoirs:

"A moment I’ve been dreading. George brought his ne’er-do-well son around this morning and asked me to find the kid a job. Not the political one who lives in Florida; the one who hangs around here all the time looking shiftless. This so-called kid is already almost 40 and has never had a real job. Maybe I’ll call Kinsley over at The New Republic and see if they’ll hire him as a contributing editor or something. That looks like easy work."

Does anyone remember how America came together after 9/11? Of course. Most of the world stood behind us then. Jacques Chirac said, "...today, we are all Americans." We were on the hunt for bin Laden, and we invaded Afghanistan because they were hiding him. Such was the right and proper response by President Bush.

That and his refusal (thus far) to invade Iran are the only things he has done right.

I call myself an amateur historian, and it is sad to think that the last years of my military career were served under the worst president in American history. He has ignored laws, ignored the Constitution, violated international law and the Geneva Convention, supported torture, imprisoned hundreds for years without trial, publicly ruined the careers of those who were courageous enough to report the facts (and in doing so exposed an entire intelligence network), ignored the warnings of the attorneys general of all 50 states about the impending housing crash, invaded a country on false pretenses...ANY ONE of this incomplete list of crimes should be enough for impeachment.

What are the historians already saying?

In May of 2004, in a survey of 415 historians, 81% already deemed his presidency a failure, and 12% had already called his presidency the worst in history.

In February of 2008, in a survey of 109 historians, 98% deemed his presidency a failure, and 61% said he was the worst president in history. In fact, in the survey only four said his presidency even ranked in the top two-thirds of U.S. Presidents.

Normally I don't like to cut-and-paste, but here's what one historian said in the survey: “No individual president can compare to the second Bush,” wrote one. “Glib, contemptuous, ignorant, incurious, a dupe of anyone who humors his deluded belief in his heroic self, he has bankrupted the country with his disastrous war and his tax breaks for the rich, trampled on the Bill of Rights, appointed foxes in every henhouse, compounded the terrorist threat, turned a blind eye to torture and corruption and a looming ecological disaster, and squandered the rest of the world’s goodwill. In short, no other president’s faults have had so deleterious an effect on not only the country but the world at large.”

I must admit I am glad that Reagan never knew just how literally right he was when he called Bush a "ne'er-do-well", which term literally means never...do...well.