By the way, Jimmy Carter was lower than 28% for a time after only FOUR years—-he's still the worst. Bush will be rehabilitated in the future by historians, Jimmy Carter wasn't and never will be. Truman was down to 22% before he decided not to run in '52—then his ratings shot up to around 30%!

Who told him what nonsense to say or ghost-wrote his book, Norman Solomon or Noam Chomsky? [snicker]

* * *

“Bush's long-held hopes of a Churchillian legacy”

He'll draw signs and frowns in the years to come, that's all. Not much fame at all, no “legacy” in the substantial sense that word normally conveys, much less “Churchillian” (no more than Guiliani after 9/11). In the low half somewhere of the bell curve among Presidents. Not at the low tail but well below or behind the mean (or median if you want to view the distribution and “ranking” another way).

When he was the WH Press Secretary, McClellan always appeared to have as much independence of spirit as a Bush family lapdog—so I highly doubt his book came out of pique alone. Maybe, just maybe, Scotty wanted to set the record straight as did George Tenet, Paul O' Neill and so many others.

As far as Scott's revelations- we all know what has been going on with the Bush adminstration- but it's important to get some sort of documents in place (since Bush burned all those e-mails) so historians have a trail and can piece together the actions of the Bush administration.

I'm not saying that Scott is all correct (I don't know and I haven't read the book). But Scott was an eye witness and his book is a good document to help piece together the Bush record. And his stories will (or will not) back up claims others have made (or claims which have yet to occur). As a group books like this will go far to document the Bush years. Each book will have a different slant, but altogether they will give a good picture.