So says Andrew Roberts in a thoughtful and punchy piece over at The Australian. It begins:
THE American lady who called to see if I would appear on her radio program was specific. "We're setting up a debate," she said sweetly, "and we want to know from your perspective as a historian whether George W. Bush was the worst president of the past century, or might he be the worst president in American history?"
"I think he's a good president," I told her, which seemed to dumbfound her and wreck my chances of appearing on her show.
In the avalanche of abuse and ridicule that we are witnessing in the media assessments of Bush's legacy, there are factors that need to be borne in mind if we are to come to a judgment that is not warped by the kind of partisan hysteria that has characterised this issue on both sides of the Atlantic.
The first is that history, by looking at the key facts rather than being distracted by the loud ambient noise of the 24-hour news cycle, will probably hand down a far more positive judgment on Bush's presidency than the immediate, knee-jerk loathing of the American and European elites.
