Bush going down as the worst POTUS in history!

I would rank Hoover, Jefferson, FDR, JFK, and Lincoln well below Bush.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You have to be either kidding or really into the koolaid.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

By 'interesting' you mean 'stupid', right ?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Right!

 

Really? FDR and Lincoln, BELOW Bush?

Wow.

~String

 

Must have a good stash.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yup. FDR is one of the worst ever. Running for a third and forth term which destroyed the tradition set by Washington and put his selfish desires ahead of the good of the country, especially when he knew his health was failing. His prolonging of the Great depression with meddling economic policies, which resulted in the bizarre situation of a government-mandated policy of burning crops while many Americans were starving, simply in an effort to prop up prices to protect a special interest. He is guilty of ignoring the threat of Stalin and not trusting Churchill more. He presided over the worst abuse of American liberty when he had Japanese Americans herded off like cattle. He had reporters imprisoned. He involved the United States in a war without declaring war with his Land Lease program. He did not pay enough attention to internal security as Russian spies stole pretty much whatever they wanted. And he left Truman out of the loop during a momentous global and economic struggle as he felt his life slipping away. Bush's incompetence can not hold a candle to these active errors in governing our country. The guy gets a pass for dying in office, much as JFK and Lincoln. He is also credited for ending the Depression that he made worse and for winning a war that he managed poorly. I'm one of the few that hasn't tasted the Kool Aid.

Lincoln could have prevented the Civil War but thought that fighting out the differences of the North and South were the only way to achieve unity. Much of the world rid itself of slavery without similar bloodshed, and we could have as well. Representatives from South Carolina were left in DC waiting rooms while the Sumpter blockade-busting was being organized. Less diplomacy was attempted before that war than the Iraq war, and far, far, far more American lives wasted. But he is a hero and Bush is the devil? I don't think so.

Too much CNN and not enough history books, methinks.

 

Bush could have prevented the Iraq war too by not 'misling' the U.S. congress, it's allies and the American people into thinking that Iraq had WMD. Oh Yeaaaaa!

 

There were no terrorists attacks on America adter 9-11-01 and that's a fact no one can ever dispute. So remember that as you evaluate his term as POTUS.

 

It is hard to prove that a lack of attacks after 9/11 was the direct result or indirect result of anything George II and his chronies did or did not do. Remember, the Bin Ladin group is a small and not well funded group.

A better question would be, could 9/11 have been prevented by doing things that our government should have been doing for decades. And I think the answer to that question is overwhelmingly yes.

 

There were:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks

The main perp was never actually caught in that one, either.

And of course these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Allen_Muhammad
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_highway_sniper_attacks

Additionally, we notice that before W's innovations in foreign policy terrorist attacks on US military and citizenry abroad were counted as terrorism against the US. And that even using the new criteria, Clinton kept us safer than W.

Also, the visible reduction in some forms of terrorism in the US began before 9/11/01, perhaps because the election of W provided hope of legal success to the major proponents of terrorism in the US, namely the pro-life and neo-Confederate vigilantes - that demographic voted for W overwhelmingly, and apparently laid aside their sniper rifles and bombs upon achieving representation of their views in the White House.

 

That's not a bad hypothesis. Not bad at all.

I do find it troubling that we tend to lay all the blame and credit with one person. Congress has maintained a lower approval rating at all times during W's presidency, both when Republicans had control and Democrats. These are the idiots who put the budgets together, though Bush should have wielded his veto power with more gusto.

As much as I loved Clinton, I also don't get why we celebrate the bubble economy that coincided with his presidency. Nor do I get our loathing of the current correction. Those of us that are responsible with our money and have large savings appreciate a good deflation now and then.

And I am not convinced that a Democratic president could have kept our country, hell-bent on bloodletting and revenge, out of Iraq. What drives me nuts is the sure knowledge that this could have happened, and Democrats would be ga-ga over nation-building and freeing an oppressed people while Republicans would be going bonkers over the financial waste. People do not choose sides based on their own opinions, they just determine whose idea it was and either hate it or love it according to their political affiliation.

You would never know it from people's loyalty, but Clinton was far more Conservative than Bush, which was why he was a better president.

 

You got this correct. It is so ironic that Democrats as a whole are now more economically conservative than Republicans - as a whole.

 

yeah, but if we add the 3000+ soldiers lost in Iraq unneccesserily, we can look at it as Bush doubled down on his bet and lost...

Also let's put it in perspective but 50K people die on the roads every year...

Now when I am flying I am more affraid of birds than terrorists...

 

No great mystery here: The party in power wants to spend money while the party out of power wants to conserve it. It all depends on who is in charge of directing where that money goes.

Beyond fiscal liberalism and conservatism, Clinton signed NAFTA into law and Sen. Kennedy spearheaded a large deregulation movement. Meanwhile, Bush increased the size of government, added more protected waters than any other president in history, gave tons of money to Africa, went on a nation-building campaign, expanded Medicare and Medicaid, launched a massive federal education initiative, increased military funding, attempted to liberalize Social Security, and spent a lot of time talking about alternative energy sources.

Why Republicans love this guy and hate Clinton vexes me. Why Democrats hate Bush and love Clinton is even more confusing. Is religion and environmentalism really the sole divider in our political system today? It seems that way to me.

 

I agree with you Swivel, and it is so funny in a sad sort of way to watch the passions on each side...everyone pay attention to the slogans and lead lines and not on the actions or substance.

 

The magic of the two-party system is that they get you hating the other side with such ferocity that you will praise the idiots in "your" party. Straight-ticket voters keep both parties from improving.

The most important time to vote is during the primaries, when less people are competing with your vote. Also, since most areas go Red or Blue every time, it is the only chance to change who gets in.

Personally, I vote anti-incumbent every time.

 

I thought the movie was rather boring. I expected more. And it was definately long...too long. It presented only a limited view of W. It really didn't spend any time on his younger years...nor did it tell you much about his presidency. Woodwards book had much more insight into the W administration.

 

Both can be said about Cheney too. Undoubtly the 'worst' President & V.P. dual in history.

 

congress approval ratings are always in the shitter.