Is GW Bush the Worst President Ever?

[Felix_Nietsche]

[img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
So who is the least bad president ever? Without really thinking about it too much, I nominate Ford, since I can't think of a single thing he ever did, good or bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you say that? Wasn't Ford the President who came up with the W.I.N buttons (Whip Inflation Now)?

[El Barto]

If this question had been asked in the 5th year of Reagan's term, the responses would have been the same. People against Reagan just hated him when he was in office, just as they hate Bush now. But after he left office, most eventually conceded that he was a great president.

You can't admit it while he is in office, because you still have battles to fight against him.

[PokrLikeItsProse]

I am utterly shocked that Richard Nixon has not been mentioned yet.

It is hard to say Bush is worst ever by using the Iraq war as your evidence considering the Vietnam War ended just 32 years ago, killed 30x as many Americans, was more costly, far more futile, and led to a despondency and apathy amongst Americans which was epitomized by the Carter presidency and the can't-do foreign policy (see Iran hostage situation). To say that Bush is "worst ever" based on war policy is to completely ignore Johnson/Nixon in Vietnam, Johnson being the extreme example of a Prez out of touch with reality, having no plan to deal with the situation, literally sitting at his desk and picking bombing targets himself. People this quick to point to Bush really have no understanding of history, and I'm not a Republican. Of course, intelligent discussion requires more than just an ISP address, which is thus the downfall of great debate on the internet.

[Toro]

[ QUOTE ]
It is hard to say Bush is worst ever by using the Iraq war as your evidence considering the Vietnam War ended just 32 years ago, killed 30x as many Americans, was more costly, far more futile, and led to a despondency and apathy amongst Americans which was epitomized by the Carter presidency and the can't-do foreign policy (see Iran hostage situation). To say that Bush is "worst ever" based on war policy is to completely ignore Johnson/Nixon in Vietnam, Johnson being the extreme example of a Prez out of touch with reality, having no plan to deal with the situation, literally sitting at his desk and picking bombing targets himself. People this quick to point to Bush really have no understanding of history, and I'm not a Republican. Of course, intelligent discussion requires more than just an ISP address, which is thus the downfall of great debate on the internet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you. You made my point. If you ignore history you are doomed to repeat it. GWB's father knew this and established the doctrine for the US to follow to prevent another Vietnam. His own son chooses to ignore not only the lessons of Vietnam but the common sense doctrine.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So who is the least bad president ever? Without really thinking about it too much, I nominate Ford, since I can't think of a single thing he ever did, good or bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you say that? Wasn't Ford the President who came up with the W.I.N buttons (Whip Inflation Now)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. But it was just a PR campaign. There was no actual action taken. Any action taken by the government is likely to just increase inflation (seeing as inflation is caused by the Federal Reserve in the first place).

[webmonarch]

Thanks for the comments. I appreciate your thoughts as well. I think many of us could learn to consider opinions of others on this board.

Let me say that I consider myself to be half conservative and half liberal. Conservative on crime/fraud, war, states rights, fiscal responsibility, and some other smaller issues. Liberal on individual rights, including family rights, speech freedoms, etc. (everyone gets them, INCLUDING 2nd Amendment), civil/equal rights, and "social ills" poverty, scientific research, etc.

So, given that, you can see how GW Bush is pretty much the polar opposite of what I consider to be good government. He doesn't balance the budget, he has attempted to ususrp states rights on several issues (gay marriage amendment is one of them), etc. He doesn't even follow his own father's good acdvice on waging war, which Toro mentioned in this thread.

Anyway, on to your comments:

[ QUOTE ]
The whole fiasco, as far as terrorism/OBL national security, can not be blamed on Bush, and Bush alone. Clinton had 8 years to deal with it, bush had 8 months. I dont think Clinton has all the blame though either. The infrastucture set in place was stupid and begnign, and unfortuently with ALL american politics, it takes something major to haver major change. I dont blame either president really, for what some radical group decides to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are absolutely right that there was no full and direct blame of either President, but when you take that oath, you're the top of the food chain, and deserve the credit and the blame. Again, even if Clinton was 90% to blame, it happened on Bush's watch, and it was FAR from a complete surprise. Trust me, if it would have happened on Clinton's watch, I'd be EXACTLY as pissed with him.

As for needing something major to move the politicians, I think you are very right, but all Bush needed to do was demand more investigation and security measures. He could have done that as Commander in Chief with nothing more than an order.

[ QUOTE ]
The tax cuts have nothing to do with the economic down turn, it is all a series of unfortunate event that occured after Sept. 11, that have lead to our weakened economy. IF you put a democrat or a republican in office during/after Sept 11 (I dont care if he was a economical genius) there was no way to stop the bleeding/snowball effect of the attack. From what I understand, presidents have little to no affect on the economy, during any one-two presidencies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, sort of true, and sort of not. Sept. 11th, assuming for a second Bush had NO way to stop it, was a big problem. No question. However, the people to whom the tax cuts were directed had NO incentive to put their additional money into the economy in anymeaningful way. If the tax cuts had been primarily directed at those who would have SPENT the money, instead of saving it (because the rich will already be spending on anything they want, and middle class may see a tax cut as anopportunity to buy that new appliance, or take a vacation or whatever). Would the tax cuts more directed at middle class have solved the whole prolem? No way, but again, its making the BEST possible choice given the need, and GW Bush failed miserably here. Furthermore, money that COULD have gone into the economy for government spending (military, parks, anything) DIDN"T because so much of the federal money is paying national debt, which leads to NO economic benefit.

[ QUOTE ]
I dont know much about hte bubble burst, but like Bush and Katrina/terrorism, Clinton put no safe gaurds in to stop the bottoming out. What Im saying is that no one can predict the future, and hindsight is 20/20.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, on the Internet burst, I'm still waiting to see a Clinton policy that led to the bubble burst. As far as I'm concerned the onoy people that burst that bubble were idiotic investors who didn't understand intrinsic value.

On Katrina, at least, Clinton did make efforts. Clinton supported the Kyoto treaty, which aims to reduce greenhouse gases and global warming. Bush's record on the environment is embarrassing, in my opinion.

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you conveniently forget the genocide that happened in Iraq? Are they not as important? We have lost around 4k lives, which is in my opinion, compared to WW2, vietnam, korea, is not that many lives. Im sorry, but it is a ground war, we are trying to make sure the genocides never happen again, we need to make sure that safegaurds are in place (ie a decent and good regime), hence more loss of American lives. I know you will say it is about oil, or other some begnign argument, but I choose to believe (and you can pretty much, not prove to me otherwise) that we are over there for altruistic reasons.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, it is about oil with Mr. Bush. I'll prove it. Genocides have been occurring in sub-saharan Africa for years, but we've never spent $80 billion+ on that. Clinton made some efforts there (not enough efforts, IMO) Bush has made nearly none.

Second, Iraq WAS NOT AN IMMEDIATE THREAT (if it ever would have been). North Korea, which no one talks about, has nuclear weapons pointed at our west coast (btw, this is one place where I think Clinton didn't spend enough time or do enough to prevent). Where's the invasion of North Korea?

Third, lets just say and assume we are there purely altruistically. Is that good policy? We've lost a ton of American lives, spent billions and billions of dollars, painted an even bigger bullseye on our foreheads for the terrorists, AND the country is LESS STABLE now than it was when Saddam was in power. I myself struggle with this question, but you have to admit that $80 billion spent on homeland security/Katrina probably would have gone a lot further.

[ QUOTE ]
because I think you are one fo the few, non-far lefties on the board, and hopefully you can change my thoughts.....becasue I really really want to be a Democrat, but I just cant bring myself to identify with the majority of you guys anymore. They are just too shrill, and to PC for me to understand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the compliment. Trust me when I say I don't support Democrats any further than Republicans, and I don't intend to sway you to support any party. They've all got their own issues. Whenever I post here, I just want people to think about the POLICY, the manifest and latent results, and whether the policy makes sense.

GW Bush is, in my opinion, one of the true policy failures of all time. IF John McCain runs for President, you'll probably see me on here wondering why Hillary Clinton had to move to NY to get elected and why Democrats run themselves into the ground EVERY elction cycle by nominating more liberal New Englanders whom the rest of the country will never identify with.

But, until then GW Bush is what we have, and he's not a good president.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So who is the least bad president ever? Without really thinking about it too much, I nominate Ford, since I can't think of a single thing he ever did, good or bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you say that? Wasn't Ford the President who came up with the W.I.N buttons (Whip Inflation Now)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. But it was just a PR campaign. There was no actual action taken. Any action taken by the government is likely to just increase inflation (seeing as inflation is caused by the Federal Reserve in the first place).

[/ QUOTE ]

He DID eliminate nixon's gas price controls... and Carter reinstated them.

natedogg

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
It is hard to say Bush is worst ever by using the Iraq war as your evidence considering the Vietnam War ended just 32 years ago, killed 30x as many Americans, was more costly, far more futile, and led to a despondency and apathy amongst Americans which was epitomized by the Carter presidency and the can't-do foreign policy (see Iran hostage situation). To say that Bush is "worst ever" based on war policy is to completely ignore Johnson/Nixon in Vietnam, Johnson being the extreme example of a Prez out of touch with reality, having no plan to deal with the situation, literally sitting at his desk and picking bombing targets himself. People this quick to point to Bush really have no understanding of history, and I'm not a Republican. Of course, intelligent discussion requires more than just an ISP address, which is thus the downfall of great debate on the internet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fantastic post.

natedogg