Is Bush the worst president, ever?

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Berzerker
I see the usual slamming of Carter, but lets take a look at Carter's foreign policy - we're just coming out of Vietnam with our tails between our legs and communism is supposedly winning, and Iranian and Sandinista revolutionaries overthrow two dictators we supported.

Many on the right wanted US invasions but Carter held back, instead he started funding Afghan resistance thereby inducing a Soviet intervention to prop up the government leading to a nasty war that drained the USSR of blood, treasure, and morale. The Cold War would end within a decade because Reagan continued Carter's policy.

The irony of the comparison between Carter and Bush is that Carter got the Russians to invade Afghanistan and bleed and now Bush has us there. I'd argue Carter did quite a lot to win the Cold War, his decisions at a most crucial time saved us from 2 wars and stuck the Russians with a war that led to their downfall. If Reagan gets credit for winning the Cold War, Carter gets credit for starting the policy. Bush has got us stuck in a mess...

I agree to a point, but you can't make this argument and ignore the eventual consequences of the "support for the Afgan resistance" - aka funding the mujahadeen (sp?). Which of course is a different sort of link between Carter and Bush.

-Arrian

[Berzerker]

I agree to a point, but you can't make this argument and ignore the eventual consequences of the "support for the Afgan resistance" - aka funding the mujahadeen (sp?). Which of course is a different sort of link between Carter and Bush.

Carter's (and Reagan) support for the Afghan resistance was not the cause of (or linked to) 9/11, it was our departure from the policy of Carter and Reagan of keeping our military "offshore" by Bush and then Clinton and Bush II - the first Gulf War followed by a decade of staying there is what led to 9/11. Had we left after expelling Saddam we would have avoided 9/11...

[Impaler[WrG]]

YES, Bush is the worst EVER, the general public is well on its way to concluding that before he's even out of office, historians are also moving rapidly in that direction. Unless the next Prez is seen to be equally bad or (:shudders worse then the opinion on Bush will crystallize over the next generation and become 'history'. If the next prez is seen to be successful it will happen even faster and I think theirs potential for a real break-out Hoover-FDR effect to happen in which the successful president outshines the predecessor so much that they pushed down in the ranking even more.

[Ben Kenobi]

It takes longer then that for History to settle. Johnson is now redeemed, whereas before he was considered the worst just because he suffered impeachment proceedings.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
It takes longer then that for History to settle. Johnson is now redeemed, whereas before he was considered the worst just because he suffered impeachment proceedings.

WTF? No he isn't. Historians still consider him very bad... and it isn't because of impeachment proceedings, but because he sucked as a President.

[Ben Kenobi]

WTF? No he isn't. Historians still consider him very bad... and it isn't because of impeachment proceedings, but because he sucked as a President.

It depends on who you talk to. I haven't seen him mentioned anywhere in this discussion!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
It depends on who you talk to. I haven't seen him mentioned anywhere in this discussion!

I believe in every historian ranking since the 80s, he's never been above 30. He's got a great claim for bottom 10, but he may just outside due to others sucking so bad.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


It depends on who you talk to. I haven't seen him mentioned anywhere in this discussion!

Because he didn't do much of all, so his inaction makes him a non-figure. He was certainly not a good president, but his weakness when compared to Congress meant he wasn't able to screw anything over too badly, and he wasn't spectacularly corrupt.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by rah


Time has a way of clouding what people think.

No ****. Look at how people now view Reagan.

[Ben Kenobi]

I believe in every historian ranking since the 80s, he's never been above 30. He's got a great claim for bottom 10, but he may just outside due to others sucking so bad.

Every historian prior to 1960 ranked him as a decent president.

So my question is why should we trust the folks after 1960 to get it right? It's about time the pendulum started swinging back.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Bush accomplishments.

.................................................. ..........................
1. Defended the US from terrorists attacks.

Except for the worst terroist attack in U.S. history, which could have been prevented if they'd paid attention to the hundreds of warnings they were getting.

2. Toppled the Taliban in Afghanistan and installed a democratic government (first ever).

The first is good, but the 2nd isn't true. There is no democracy in Afghanistan.

3. Captured Saddam Hussein.

So what? A million people died to make that happen.

4. Freed the Kurds from genocide in Iraq, and gave them regional autonomy.

Actually, that was his father.

5. Established a democratic government in Iraq.

There's no democracy in Iraq, either.

.................................................. ...........................

Foreign policy alone, that ranks him behind only Wilson and FDR. Eisenhower had a stalemate in Korea, and Nixon had defeat in Vietnam. Wilson's defeat of the Kaiserreich and establishing the League of Nations was huge.

.................................................. ................................

6. Passed the FTA with Canada, lowering softwood lumber tariffs.

That doesn't make him great. He spread our cheeks to the evil Canadians.

7. Passed the Bush tax cuts.

Giving us the greatest deficit in history.

8. Ban on embryonic stem cell research.

Letting the U.S. fall behind the world in stem cell research, and holding back the advance of science.

9. Ban on overseas funding of coercive abortions.

Okay, one out of ten so far.

10. Pass no child left behind.

And our schools still get worse.

11. Created health savings accounts.

Meh. We need universal health care.

12. Born Alive act.

Relatively minor law that does nothing but make conservatives happy.

13. Appointed Sam Alito and John Roberts.

Neither of whom should be on the Court.

[Ben Kenobi]

Except for the worst terroist attack in U.S. history, which could have been prevented if they'd paid attention to the hundreds of warnings they were getting.

Oh true. File that under 'Clinton, Bill'. I'd say the measure of Bush is that you had the one, and not more since then.

The first is good, but the 2nd isn't true. There is no democracy in Afghanistan.

Oh, there isn't. How do you define democracy?

So what? A million people died to make that happen.

A million? A tad bit of exaggeration there. There hasn't been 4k casulties in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Actually, that was his father.

Which is why Saddam was gassing them up until their defeat?

There's no democracy in Iraq, either.

Define democracy for me please.

That doesn't make him great. He spread our cheeks to the evil Canadians.

So better to lower trade with Canada, no the only problem is that there still is a tariff.

Giving us the greatest deficit in history.

You'd rather be taxed 100 percent and have no deficit?

Letting the U.S. fall behind the world in stem cell research, and holding back the advance of science.

What advent? Embryonic stem cells have done nothing. Adult cells are still funded and have had many, many breakthroughs. Why should state money be wasted on a dead end.

Interesting fact, is that Republicans rank Bush in the top 6, and Democrats rank him in the bottom 6, so obviously we will have to wait to get an accurate assessment.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
A million? A tad bit of exaggeration there. There hasn't been 4k casulties in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Some people actually consider Iraqis people too Ben.

[Ben Kenobi]

So Americans have a kill ratio of 200:1?

Sorry don't buy it.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So Americans have a kill ratio of 200:1?

Sorry don't buy it.

Er, Che didn't say U.S. combat forces killed one million people. He said that one million people died as a result of the decision to invade. Huge difference.