Did Churchill Have the Right Idea About Iraq?

Did Churchill Have the Right Idea About Iraq?

By Shannon Monaghan

Shannon Monaghan studies history at Yale University and writes for the History News Service.

On Sept. 1, 1922, Great Britain's colonial secretary, the man responsible for the administration of the British presence in Iraq, wrote a scathing letter to his Prime Minister on the miserable state of that country and Britain's interests there. He closed his letter with these crushing lines:

"At present we are paying eight millions [in] pounds Sterling a year [the equivalent of half a billion dollars today] for the privilege of living on an ungrateful volcano out of which we are in no circumstances to get anything worth having."

The name of that colonial secretary? Winston Churchill.

The phrase "history repeats itself" is overused; the greater tragedy is that in this instance the cliche is entirely appropriate. President Bush appears to think that he can somehow escape the lessons that the past can teach us and that history will treat his misadventure in Iraq well. Experience does not bode well for his hopes.

By 1922, Churchill had no such illusory hopes about Iraq. In fact, he declared the task of managing the country "impossible."

Little has changed since Churchill came to that sobering conclusion. Like those who would today challenge the American president on Iraq, Churchill paid a price for his view. His prime minister severely rebuked him, and refused to allow even the notion of withdrawal to be brought before his cabinet. It took Great Britain ten years more of harsh lessons before it finally granted that nation its independence.

In making his case to Prime Minister David Lloyd George, Churchill argued that Britain's course of action in Iraq was a waste - a waste of money, effort, time and political capital. The difficulties with Britain's stance that Churchill emphasized are those that the American public faces day after day, month after month, year after year.

Churchill declared the Arab officials of Iraq's British-backed King Feisal "incompetent." He noted the gross over-expenditure of monies in the region by the British government, which "it is almost certain Iraq will not be able to pay." Furthermore, he lamented that "no progress has been made in developing the oil." He was worried about British troops and desperately concerned about increased Turkish influence in the region and a potential Turkish invasion. He insisted that "there is scarcely a single newspaper . . . which is not consistently hostile to our remaining in this country."

In fact, Churchill strongly advocated immediately removing the British presence in Iraq if the provisional Iraqi government did not co-operate. Furthermore, he pointed out that in Britain the party had "no political strength to face disaster of any kind," and that the British public's opinion of the situation was so poor that a newly formed government at home would have to order "instant evacuation" to gain immediate support. After reciting at length this litany of failures, Churchill crisply stated, "Altogether, I am getting to the end of my resources."

One need only to turn on the news to realize that the United States is futilely struggling with the very same problems that Churchill struggled with - and more. The U.S. government and its military leaders cannot find a solution to the problems besetting the Iraqi government, the development and allocation of the country's oil, the influence of Iran and other countries in the region and sectarian violence. U.S. military forces face unrelieved dangers. Public opinion at home has soured on the war. Americans, like Britons in Churchill's day, have reached the end of their resources.

Ironically, Bush declared in 2004 that "I've always been a great admirer of Sir Winston Churchill, admirer of his career, admirer of his strength, admirer of his character -- so much so that I keep a stern-looking bust of Sir Winston in the Oval Office." If the President so admires Churchill, he should heed that great man's warnings about involvement in Iraq and remove American troops from that nation now.

A True Hero

Not often in our lives do we really see a Hero. We try to equate the movie image with real live, but that truly is not the case. Movies, as expected, are nothing more than a hyperbole of life. I know we’ve often heard of courage with soldiers who throw themselves on a grenade, but these heroes are ‘trained’ to sacrifice for the ‘greater good’ of the team.

But the actions of Liviu Librescu during the massacre at Virginia Tech are truly heroic. Here is a 76 year old man who ‘just’ happened to be a Holocaust survivor who give his life to safe his entire class on the official Holocaust Day acknowledged throughout the world (except in the Islamic/Arabic world).

I know there were others who showed heroism during this tragidy, but I am in awe of Mr. Librescu. Could I, would I try to barricade a door and look in the eyes of a mass murder and throw my body and soul to save a group of students??? It is said that Cho was able to push open the door(s) a bit as he was trying to enact his destruction.

I can’t imagine what Mr. Librescu saw in Cho’s eyes. Mr. Librescu would have been around twelve years old during his incarnation by the Nazis. Can you imagine as a young lad to witness the horrors of the concentration camps and then experience this? I wonder if the dead eyes of Cho were the same as those of the heartless guards. After hearing and seeing Cho’s unbelievable post-mortem manifesto, I’m even more impressed by those who sacrificed themselves.

After this horror, I choose to not acknowledge the devastation wrought by Cho, but the honor Mr. Librescu.

God Bless.

Can Secular West Understand?

I was raised in pretty much a secular home growing up. I never remember going to church until I moved to Texas at the age of twelve. My early years were spent in So Cal, from Torrance to Encino. Once in Texas, I was required to go to Baptist church weekly. Can’t say it helped much as some people may attest… Today whudda thunk I’d attend Catholic church every week (albeit as a “practicing non-Catholic” as my wife calls it) AND send my children to private Catholic school??? More on that in future posts!

My original point was going to be growing up in a secular home, I’ve always given the benefit of the doubt when it came to religion to the believer. I was one of those dope smokin’ slackers in college that took up every religion that I could came across. I read the Bhagavad-Gita, the Vedas, the Tibetan Book of the Dead, the Daozang and the Book of Mormon; I thought all these religions were all basically good at heart. At times, I thought the Christian church was the least worthy of all the major religions due to its bloody past.

I never really studied Islam during this time and thought it was just a step child of Judaism and Christianity and thought Mohammad was just another prophet. I don’t think I’ve EVER been so naïve.

During Islam’s Golden Years, I have no doubt it was a thriving social and cultural leader, but that was between 700 to 1200 years ago. Now they’ve, and yes that is a massive generalization to say this, but I’m speaking from North Africa to Indonesia, devolved into a series of societies with petroleum and terrorism as the primary export.

~~~~~~~~~~~

I came across an article by Shlomo Engel today which I thought included several valid points.

The current war between Islam and the West is over the most fundamental cultural values of the two civilizations.

Followers of Western culture believe in the supreme value of human life, civilian rights, complete freedom of thought and human spirit, genuine pluralism of beliefs and views coexisting side by side, equal status of men and women, and a free economic and intellectual market that is constantly improving as a result of competition and the individual's right to advance.

Western culture also believes in the power of words and persuasion, the use of force as a last resort only, individualsism, limitless self-criticism and public criticism, and all other values of freedom and equality.

On the other hand, followers of the Islamic culture believe in one religion and one opinion meant to overtake the world through a Muslim crusade of blood and infidel bodies.

The well known duty of spreading Islam by the sword reflects the essence of this belligerent, murderous culture, which is willing to sacrifice millions of human beings (both Muslims and infidels) whose value is insignificant on the altar of the Muslim ideal of conquest and force.

In such a belligerent, violent society, there's of course no room for civil rights or any status for women, or any aspiration for education that is not zealously religious.

What is so amazing with today’s West is the lack of acknowledgement of Islam’s fundamental mistreatment of women.

It's difficult to point to a significant social movement by Muslims that espouses the values of education, freedom, equality, and peace. On the other hand, millions of Muslims are quick to avenge and destroy and kill and burn over any caricature or utterance they do not like.

Muslims are almost completely absent from the scientific and academic world, not to mention the Muslim woman.

This religious zealotry is unrelated to economic and social status, and is true for residents of luxurious palaces in Saudi Arabia as it is for residents of refugee camps in Gaza and Lebanon.

It is to be expected that merely presenting this war of civilizations will immediately elicit the regular derogatory insults of racism and fascism that are so much liked by Muslim fanatics and their innocent supporters in the West.

The Western world's great openness created a situation whereby the blatant, anti-democratic racism and inequality that is built into Muslim culture receives the same status and legitimacy as other Western cultural values.

Under this cover, the violent and fanatic aggressor allows itself to fight Western culture in its own home by demanding rights of equality and freedom that it doesn't believe in, but is glad to utilize in order to achieve its own destructive objectives.

[…]

The realization that a democracy must defend itself against those threatening to ruin it, even at the price of undermining the rights of those fighting against it, is a required condition for a victory by the sons of light against the sons of darkness – a war faced by the entire world, and particularly in Israel.

This is not just Israel’s fight but all of ours. Until we recognize what radical Islam is bringing to the West, we’re in dire peril being blinded by our sense of fairness which these folks don’t seem to fathom.

Jimmy Carter's Folly

I’m sure most of you have seen Jimmy Carter’s book tour and subsequent explanation or rationalization of all the factual errors. It’s a shame how he’s turn into such a flamin’ anti-Semite, but then chances are he’s always been one.

Carter has always been considered somewhat of an intellectual, but his blatant dishonesty is beyond the pale.

CARTER: Page 57: The 1949 armistice demarcation lines became the borders of the new nation of Israel and were accepted by Israel and the United States, and recognized officially by the United Nations.

FACT: The 1949 armistice lines separating the West Bank from Israel never became permanent borders recognized by Israel, the United States or the U.N. Security Council. On the contrary, the Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement of April 3, 1949 specifically notes that the lines are not borders: "The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI of this Agreement are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto."

CARTER: Page 190: [The barrier] is projected to be at least three and a half times as long as Israel’s internationally recognized border ...

FACT: The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs notes that "Because of its meandering path into the West Bank, the [total 703 km length of the route] is more than twice the length of the "Green Line" – 315 km."

CARTER: Page 50: Perhaps the most serious omission of the Camp David talks was the failure to clarify in writing Begin's verbal promise concerning the settlement freeze during subsequent peace talks.

Washington Post Op-Ed, Nov. 26, 2000:

Prime Minister Begin pledged that there would be no establishment of new settlements until after the final peace negotiations were completed.

FACT: Begin promised—and delivered—a three month settlement freeze. At a Sept. 17, 2003 symposium at the Carter Center, Israeli jurist Aharon Barak explained he was in the relevant meeting, had been the only one taking notes, and that his notes showed that Begin had agreed only to a three month freeze. Off camera Carter is heard to state, "I don't dispute that." William Quandt then added that while he had not been in the meeting, Cyrus Vance (Jimmy Carter's Secretary of State) had been and told him immediately afterwards that Begin agreed to a three month freeze. (See details and video clip here.)

Too many more examples to list, but pls review the numerous factual errors.

Red State Mentality

Stumbled upon an interesting snippet from Inside the Beltway buried deep. John McCaslin brings up an interesting comparison which I've not heard of, yet.

"Weather Bulletins" from both North Dakota and Colorado are making the rounds on Capitol Hill, about how the regions are recovering from 90-mile-per-hour blizzards that dropped upward of 44 inches of snow, broke trees in half, knocked down utility poles, cut power to tens of thousands, closed roads and stranded motorists in lethal snow banks.
Nevertheless, say the creators of the bulletins: "George Bush did not come. FEMA did nothing. No one howled for the government. No one blamed the government. No one even uttered an expletive on TV. Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton did not visit. Our mayor did not blame Bush or anyone else. Our governor did not blame Bush or anyone else, either. CNN, ABC, CBS, FOX or NBC did not visit — or report on this category 5 snowstorm. Nobody demanded $2,000 debit cards. No one asked for a FEMA trailer house. No one looted. No Larry King, no Bill O'Reilly, no Oprah. ... "
It goes on and on and on, but you get the message.

Could this be the middle America work ethic verses the urban entitlement syndrome?

Happy New Year!!!

Happy New Year! ! !

I’ll try to begin bloggin’ again shortly.

Mexico Threatens Suits Over Guard Patrols

I've been so delinquent in blogging due to apathy, sorry...but this just gets me. The Mexico govt has the audacity to threaten us with lawsuits for enforcing our laws and borders.

CIUDAD JUAREZ, Mexico - Mexico said Tuesday that it would file lawsuits in U.S. courts if National Guard troops on the border become directly involved in detaining migrants. Mexican border officials also said they worried that sending troops to heavily trafficked regions would push illegal migrants into more perilous areas of the U.S.-Mexican border to avoid detection.

So because we make it more difficult for them to cross, they're threatening to sue us...

Look, we need to truly be compassionate about the whole immigration process. I mean, if you have children raised as Americans, we really shouldn't force them back to their 'home' country. But then again, before we do any reformation, we REALLY need to be able to seal up the border as much as possible.

Wafa Sultan

I don’t know about you, but I enjoyed reading in my local rag, The News Tribune, about Wafa Sultan and her lashing out at radical Islam. It was a joy. I’ve been waiting and waiting for moderate Muslims to unite and repudiate the Islamofacists. The rebuke has been few and far between for whatever reason.

The Religious Policeman has an excellent article on the moderate Muslim’s perspective. In addition, he links to MEMRI’s video of two of her interviews. Pls watch them. I have profound respect for her….and wish her health and happiness in face of what no doubt will be unrelenting harassment. She has true bravery.

What are your thoughts today?

What are your thoughts these days? I’m not too moved by the Portgate issue, sorry to say. Both sides are on the roof tops bemoaning the thought of ‘foreign’ countries operating ports. When Sen. Boxer goes off, it’s rather laughable given the fact Chinese are operating two major ports on the West coast. I may not be 100% comfortable with foreign ownership, but let’s see what the impact truly is before we go off.

Victor D. Hanson’s Friday article once again is spot on:
Fear in the U.S. of Russian nukes made strange bedfellows during the Cold War, like our relationship with the shah of Iran, Franco, Somoza, and Pinochet. The logic was that such strongmen, unlike Communist thugs, would evolve eventually into constitutional governments, or, unlike elected socialists, they could at least be trusted not to turn their countries into satellites of the Soviet Union.
We paid a price for such realpolitik when the Berlin Wall fell. Few gave us the deserved thanks for bankrupting the Soviet empire, but we did get plenty of the blame for the mess left behind by third-world dictatorships.
Now Middle East autocracies use the same "it's either us or them" blackmail. They hope to survive the tide of democratization by showing off their antiterrorist plumage. The problem is that the defeat of terrorism — like that of global Communism — ultimately rests with promoting freedom, not authoritarianism.
Decades of supporting right-wing authoritarians did nothing to ameliorate a dysfunctional Middle East. Perhaps support for democratic reform will usher in Hamas in Palestine, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, something worse than Gen. Musharraf in Pakistan, and a shaky post-Saddam Hussein government in violence-torn Iraq, but what else is the United States to do?
About what we are doing now: We should keep supporting the process, but not necessarily the result; much less should we subsidize elected anti-Americans. The key is to keep a low profile and promote consensual government, but without bullying or grand moral pronouncements when the odious are elected.
We should praise the relatively free voting that ushered in Hamas, insist that they institutionalize the process that brought them to power, but under no circumstances give such terrorists any American money as long as they pledge to destroy Israel.
Allowing the autocratic Mr. Mubarak to go his own way without any more American largess may well empower the Muslim Brotherhood. Fine. Let the zealots talk all they want about bringing corruption-free government to Egypt at last, and hatred of the United States too. In response, America need only quietly explain that we no longer subsidize dictators — or terrorists who are elected to power through principled American support for democratic elections. I'm sure that after all the invective subsides, the Egyptians can sort out both our logic and idealism.
I’ve long questioned the support of Egypt as being foolish. I also am not fearful of the election results of Iraq and Palestine. Democracy has a way of balancing out differences. After all, we’ve always had a ‘cordual’ relationship with India while not always agreeing with their relationship with some of our adversaries.

You scored as Serenity (Firefly). You like to live your own way and don�t enjoy when anyone but a friend tries to tell you should do different. Now if only the Reavers would quit trying to skin you. Moya (Farscape) 81% Serenity (Firefly) 81% Babylon 5 (Babylon 5) 75% Millennium Falcon (Star Wars) 75% Bebop (Cowboy Bebop) 69% Nebuchadnezzar (The Matrix) 69% FBI's X-Files Division (The X-Files) 69% SG-1 (Stargate) 63% Deep Space Nine (Star Trek) 63% Galactica (Battlestar: Galactica) 63% Andromeda Ascendant (Andromeda) 31% Enterprise D (Star Trek) 31% Your Ultimate Sci-Fi Profile II: which sci-fi crew would you best fit in? (pics) created with QuizFarm.com

VDH Post

Sorry for the absence, I’ve just had no inclination to blog. I’m finding most of life inane, especially politics. From Alito to ‘Domestic Spying’, all is just gak and I just don’t care…

Yet, I do feel the Indignation felt by printing of cartoons in Europe is hypocritical. It’s the old ‘do as I say, not as I do’ mentality. They can dish it out, but not take it . . .

Victor Hanson has yet again posted an insightful piece on the lunacy of the Middle East. I do feel the next focus of American ingenuity should be on Alternate Energy. It is vital for the survival of the Western beliefs. Otherwise, we will be consumed…

From VDH:
     Public relations between the so-called West and the Islamic Middle East have reached a level of abject absurdity. Hamas, whose charter pledges the very destruction of Israel, comes to power only through American-inspired pressures to hold Western-style free elections on the West Bank. No one expected the elders of a New England township, but they were nevertheless somewhat amused that the result was right out of a Quentin Tarantino movie.
Almost immediately, Hamas's newly elected, self-proclaimed officials issued a series of demands: Israel should change its flag; the Europeans and the Americans must continue to give its terrorists hundreds of millions of dollars in aid; there will be no retraction of its promises to destroy Israel.
Apparently, the West and Israel are not only to give to Hamas some breathing space ("a truce"), but also to subsidize it while it gets its second wind to renew the struggle to annihilate the Jewish state.
All this lunacy is understood only in a larger surreal landscape. Tibet is swallowed by China. Much of Greek Cyprus is gobbled up by Turkish forces. Germany is 10% smaller today than in 1945. Yet only in the Middle East is there even a term "occupied land," one that derived from the military defeat of an aggressive power.
Over a half-million Jews were forcibly cleansed from Baghdad, Damascus, Cairo, and other Arab cities after the 1967 war; but only on the West Bank are there still refugees who lost their homes. Over a million people were butchered in Rwanda; thousands die each month in Darfur. The world snoozes. Yet less than 60 are killed in a running battle in Jenin, and suddenly the 1.5 million lost in Stalingrad and Leningrad are evoked as the moral objects of comparison, as the globe is lectured about "Jeningrad."
[…]
The architects of September 11, by general consent, hide somewhere on the Pakistani border. A recent American missile strike that killed a few of them was roundly condemned by the Pakistani government. Although a recipient of billions of dollars in American aid and debt relief, and admittedly harboring those responsible for 9/11, it castigates the U.S. for violating borders in pursuit of our deadly enemies who, while on Pakistani soil, boast of planning yet another mass murder of Americans.
Pakistan demands that America will cease such incursions — or else. The "else" apparently entails the threat either to give even greater latitude to terrorists, or to allow them to return to Afghanistan to destroy the nascent democracy in Kabul. American diplomats understandably would shudder at the thought of threatening nuclear Pakistan should there be another 9/11, this time organized by the very al Qaedists they now harbor.
The list of hypocrisies could be expanded. The locus classicus, of course, is bin Laden's fanciful fatwas. Oil pumped for $5 a barrel and sold for $70 is called stealing resources. Tens of millions of Muslims emigrating to the United States and Europe, while very few Westerners reside in the Middle East, is deemed "occupying our lands." Israel, the biblical home of the Jews, and subsequently claimed for centuries by Persians, Greeks, Macedonians, Romans, Byzantines, Franks, Ottomans, and English is "occupied by crusader infidels" — as if the entire world is to accept that world history began only in the seventh century A.D.
[..]

So take the dependency on oil away from Europe and the United States, and the billions of petrodollars the world sends yearly to medieval regimes like Iran or Saudi Arabia, and the other five billion of us could, to be frank, fret little whether such self-pitying tribal and patriarchal societies wished to remain, well, tribal. There would be no money for Hezbollah, Wahhabi madrassas, Syrian assassination teams, or bought Western apologists.
The problem is not just a matter of the particular suppliers who happen to sell to the United States — after all, we get lots of our imported oil from Mexico, Canada, and Nigeria. Rather, we should worry about the insatiable American demand that results in tight global supply for everyone, leading to high prices and petrobillions in the hands of otherwise-failed societies who use this largess for nefarious activities from buying nukes to buying off deserved censure from the West, India, and China. If the Middle East gets a pass on its terrorist behavior from the rest of the world, ultimately that exemption can be traced back to the voracious American appetite for imported oil, and its effects on everything from global petroleum prices to the appeasement of Islamic fascism.
Without nuclear acquisition, a Pakistan or Iran would warrant little worry. It is no accident that top al Qaeda figures are either in Pakistan or Iran, assured that their immunity is won by reason that both of their hosts have vast oil reserves or nukes or both.
[…]
In the meantime, until we arrive at liberal and consensual governments that prove stable, there will be no real peace. And if an Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Syria obtains nuclear weapons, there will be eventually war on an unimaginable scale, predicated on the principle that the West will tolerate almost any imaginable horror to ensure that one of its cities is not nuked or made uninhabitable.
Yet if billions of petrodollars continue to pour into such traditional societies, as a result they will never do the hard political and economic work of building real societies. Instead their elites will obtain real nuclear weapons to threaten neighbors for even more concessions, as they buy support at home with the national prestige of an "Islamic bomb." Saddam almost grasped that: had he delayed his invasion of Kuwait five years until he resurrected his damaged nuclear program, Kuwait would now be an Iraqi province, and perhaps Saudi Arabia as well.
In the long-term, democratization in the framework of constitutional government has the best chance of bringing relief. But for the foreseeable future the United States and its allies must also ensure that Iran, and states like it, are not nuclear, and that we wean ourselves off a petroleum dependency — to save both ourselves, the addicts, and even our enemies, the dealers of the Middle East.

Left's Cross

As you can tell by the lack of blogging, I’ve lost much interest…apathy is a drag.

Even Bush’s domestic spying didn’t draw my ire…. But leave it to Robert Dreyfuss to bring me out of my funk.

I’ve often heard from the Right how the Left is nothing but negative in their out look of life in general. I’ve often thought that was not an untrue statement…but tonight, it became clear just how negative the Left is by Dreyfuss’ column.

They hope all fail…which brings them joy.

French Hypocrisy

France is getting a taste of what they’ve been fermenting. Moonbat Central leads to a New York Sun article nicely pointing out the hypocrisy of the French. It couldn’t have happened to a nicer bunch of folks.

One thing pointed out in the Sun article:

A number of observers of the French scene have looked at population trends and suggested that France is on its way to becoming a Muslim country (one that would, let it be noted, be armed with hydrogen bombs).

Nice thought, eh?

Sharia Justice

Now, I know the USA is not to be referenced when dealing with humane justice with juveniles. Although I may think 13 – 14 yr olds know right from wrong, I don’t think they should be tried as adults…

That being said, I surely don’t think Sharia law is the answer either…check out the justice for an eight yr old caught stealing bread.

Note: site was shut down due to traffic, but thanks to Orbusmax.

Sad from the land of zombies

Sad from the land of zombies…

Far Left are just as wacked as the Far Right.

Thanks to Orbusmax

Zionist forewarned

OK, so tell me again why we shouldn't defend Israel?

"Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury, (while) any (Islamic leader) who recognizes the Zionist regime means he is acknowledging the surrender and defeat of the Islamic world," Ahmadinejad said.

Talk about little penis syndrome . . .

Being the General

And here I like William Wallace...

King Edward I You scored 62 Wisdom, 73 Tactics, 52 Guts, and 50 Ruthlessness!

Or rather, King Edward the Longshanks if you've seen Braveheart. You, like Edward, are incredibly smart and shrewd, but you win at any costs.... William Wallace died at his hands after a fierce Scottish rebellion against his reign. Despite his reputation though, Longshanks had the best interests of his people at heart. But God help you if you got on his bad side.

My test tracked 4 variables How you compared to other people your age and gender: You scored higher than 40% on Unorthodox You scored higher than 60% on Tactics You scored higher than 41% on Guts You scored higher than 61% on Ruthlessness

Link: The Which Historic General Are You Test written by dasnyds on Ok Cupid, home of the 32-Type Dating Test

Coptic Troubles

Another fine entry from Wretchard on the West's perception of Christianity in Egypt.

Young Singers Spread Racist Hate

This is sad . . . once again, young minds fill with crap. But it’s no different than young rappers spewing sexist, gangsta garbage. This is the same mind set which punishes young bright minds, being ridiculed as Uncle Toms for using their minds.

Presidential Ratings

I don't really put much faith in polls these days since it seems America is so polarized these days, but I did find this article rather interesting.

Data from six polling organizations in October show an average of 39.5 percent job approval for Bush.

But according to the Gallup Organization, that's a higher mark than the low points for all commanders in chief dating back to Lyndon Johnson in the mid 1960s.

The low points for recent commanders in chief are as follows:

Bill Clinton: 37 percent George H. W. Bush: 29 percent Ronald Reagan: 35 percent Jimmy Carter: 28 percent Gerald Ford: 37 percent Richard Nixon: 24 percent Lyndon Johnson: 35 percent To find presidents with higher low-point approval ratings than Bush, one has to go back to John Kennedy at 56 percent, and Dwight Eisenhower at 48 percent.