George Bush: Was he the worst President ever?

Discussion in 'Politics & Law' started by Babe_Ruth, Nov 29, 2008.

  1. Babe_Ruth

    Babe_Ruth Sultan of Swat Staff Member V.I.P.

    After seeing George Bush as the President of the United States for a long period of time, do you consider him the worst President of the United States ever?

    If yes, please explain why.

    If no, please tell me who you believe was worst, and why.
     

  2. BigBob

    BigBob Registered Member

    I don't think my opinion really makes sense.

    In retrospect, you can say that Nixon was one of the worst leaders because he was forced to resign because of Watergate and such, but he was one of the best leaders in the history of America.

    George Bush made some mistakes, but he always helped us out in our time of need. I believe that the way our economy is was inevitable, that no matter who was in office, it was going to happen. We were due for a market crash soon, wern't we? Kidding!
     
  3. Sim

    Sim Registered Member

    I don't know whether Bush is the worst President in US history, but I think he at least is clearly the worst post-WW2 President (since I don't know enough about the pre-FDR presidents).

    Bush started two wars in the name of fighting terrorism, one of which at least was an utter disaster and failure. Incompetence whereever you look regarding Iraq -- the invasion was a failure, the post-invasion occupation was one huge failure, the whole Middle Eastern policy is one huge failure. Because America's troops are bond in Iraq, Iran has risen and doesn't fear America anymore, and North Korea is dancing with a nuclear program on America's nose.

    Bush expanded executive power in a dangerous way, violated many basic civil and human rights.

    Bush lied to the world about Iraq's WMD and played away any credit America enjoyed in the eyes of the world; America's soft power, which is ultimately more important than hard-power, was completely played away.

    Bush also completely ruined the American budget, America is at the brink of bankruptcy now.


    Bush may very well enter history as the President who played away America's status as sole world superpower -- to the degree the financial crisis ruins America's only remaining source of power, it's economic strength, and to the degree China and India are rising.

    Obama will take office in a completely ruined country, ruined by Bush -- economically, morally, militarily.
     
    Major likes this.
  4. BigBob

    BigBob Registered Member


    You can't really say that he started the wars..of course he sent out men and women over there, but what did you want him to do? Call Sadam up "Hey man, I would appreciate it if you and Osama Bin Laden wouldn't kill thousands of Americans. Thanks!"

    They wanted war, so we gave them war. It's just human nature to fight back.
     
  5. Bananas

    Bananas Endangered Species

    Sadam did not kill 1000's of Americans? The only Americans Saddam killed were the invading kind. Neither did Saddam harbour terrorists, the irony is that modern day Iraq does!
     
  6. Sim

    Sim Registered Member

    I agree that was the case in Afghanistan. Something had to be done about the Taliban there, who hosted al-Qaida.

    But Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism. Saddam was a secular dictator who put islamists in jail. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, and he had no significant ties to al-Qaida.

    You may have a point that sometimes it's good to topple a ruthless dictator and to liberate his people. But that's not what Bush said. He did not say he wants to topple Saddam because he is a genocidal dictator. He lied to the public in the entire world, by claiming Saddam is developing WMD (which were not found). He lied to the world by claiming Saddam has ties to 9/11.

    And the whole post-invasion occupation was poorly executed. Between 2003 and 2007, about 600,000 Iraqis have died -- which means that five times the number of Iraqis have died per year after the invasion, than under Saddam's rule. And this blood is on Bush's and America's hands now.

    Iraq is in chaos and at the brink of civil war, it may very well happen Shias with ties to Iran take power, or radical islamists. Post-invasion Iraq may destabilize the fragile balance of power in the Middle East entirely.
     
  7. icegoat63

    icegoat63 Son of Liberty V.I.P. Lifetime

    last time I checked it was Congress that actually declares war and both Afghanistan (Operation Enduring Freedom) and Iraq (Operation Iraqi Freedom) were declared by Congress. Presidents only have the power to send in a minimal amount of troops as a "Police action" over a regulated period of time.

    Its common knowledge that the Executive Branch gets the short end of the stick when it comes to Checks & Balances. To say that Bush is 100% responsible would be to completely disregard the other branches of government.

    Ever notice how Bush's popularity dropped the worst around 2006... the same election year that Congress became Democratic controlled and ever since then Bush has done nothing but spin his wheels and lose popularity in the publics eye while Congress runs the country into the dirt? But I suppose its easier for everyone to just blame him right... I mean hell he is the head of state.

    I believe there is a much bigger picture to paint than to ever Point fingers at just 1 president. I mean look at the years prior to Ronald Reagan.... pretty similar to these if you ask me. Low country morale, crappy economic situation, the list goes on and on. But can you pin that on one person? I really dont believe it can or should be done, way to many other factors to take into account.
     
    Oooh_snap likes this.
  8. Sim

    Sim Registered Member

    @IceGoat:

    Well it was not like George Bush really didn't want to go to war with Iraq, but the eeeeevil Congress pushed him all the time, and he finally gave in against his will ...

    And probably you are right. Blaming Bush alone is probably unfair. The whole Republican party is to blame, since it has been taken over by borderline-fascist big-government-conservatives, neocons and theocons.
    The whole party is rotten from bottom to top.
     
  9. Swiftstrike

    Swiftstrike Registered Member

    Bush lost popularity after Katrina...

    Congress hasn't formally declared war since WWII.

    They have given congressional powers to the president to fight wars though...Instead of a formal war declarations. So the United States Congress has begun issuing authorizations of force which I think gives the executive branch too much power.

    Executive power has grown astronomically under the Bush presidency. That much is apparent.

    I think Warren G. Harding is probably the worst president in U.S. history.

    Bush messed up a ton but some of the things were out of his control he has mismanaged so much though.
     
  10. icegoat63

    icegoat63 Son of Liberty V.I.P. Lifetime

    No no Im not trying to claim for 1 second that Bush Didnt want to war. This to may sound odd but I would believe the war efforts were created as an answer to a falling economy. They were supposed to boost the economy. Thinking back....Clinton era was a HUGE boost due to the silicon valley break throughs. Those alone helped spark years of economic growth but like all things, physics takes hold and the rule applies: what goes up; must come down. They didnt come to a complete Halt as much as the inflation just sorta went away as technology became produced easier and made more available, Prices came to a reasonable level and that "everyone must have a computer" goal had been accomplished. The Bush Administration catches the tail end of it and has no answer. Previous history has shown that cooperative war efforts stimulate the economy. A great example would be the jump from 1930's-1940's, the war effort made all the difference in terms of economy and brought a struggling nation back to its feet. In all economic theory (morals aside) it wasnt a horrid idea, problem is its just a quick fix- just enough to pass the time bomb to the next poor bastard to take office. But these are all decisions that flow through advisors, specialists, congressmen, etc etc etc.

    As far as the Republican party is concerned.....I'll agree on the sentimate of it being about time to clean house. Much like the parties before I believe the GOP has really lost track of its goal and needs some new names, new faces, but most of all just new structuring. American politics in general needs restructuring to... like hybrix's signature quote suggests: its not that good people arent out there.....its just that the good people arent getting involved in politics.
     

Share This Page