Will George W. Bush go down in history...

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: K1052
It is impossible to judge accurately how kind history will be to Bush's presidency at this time.

The bar is pretty high for worst president anyway. LBJ got thousands killed in Vietnam, Buchanan let the next guy elected deal with his mess (immenent US civil war), Andew Jackson botched the reconstruction in the worst ways possible and got himself impeached, FDR left us a leagacy of an immense federal government that is only getting bigger, Jefferson and Madison get credit for disarming us then declaring war on the world's formost military power, and the list goes on.....

Andrew Johnson

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: Proletariat
It really all depends on the situation in Iraq... Can't tell yet.

Yup

 

[CallMeJoe]

Even if you agree with GWB's ideology (which I obviously don't) you have to give him the lowest marks possible for basic competence. It's one thing to develop bad policies; it's another thing entirely to botch every major initiative of your presidency.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: Proletariat
It really all depends on the situation in Iraq... Can't tell yet.

Yup

Best case in Iraq is that they struggle and maintain a constitutional democracy in a region largely devoid of it. If that comes with a $1T price tag over 7 years . . . that's still a failure . . . at least for the country paying the bill. If it ushers in a wave of democracies throughout the Middle East . . . eh . . . that's an interesting discussion.

Regardless, the odds aren't in our favor and its almost irrelevant to Bush. Success or failure of Iraq is NOW largely a function of what the Iraqis do. It's pretty much a closed case that Bush bungled much of what happened from Spring 2003-Spring 2005.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: Proletariat
It really all depends on the situation in Iraq... Can't tell yet.

Yup

Granted, however things are looking like many analysts in the various Agencies said they would, particularly in State. We have no diplomatic credibility or skill, so we have to rely on strength of arms and the good will of people like Chalibi.

I'm not holding my breath.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: Proletariat
It really all depends on the situation in Iraq... Can't tell yet.

Yup

We invaded Iraq, a soverign country based on either lies or piss poor intelligence. History won't let that little detail slip by so easily.

GWB had a chance to be a great president and to unite both the country and the free world, but he let it slip away from him because he was chasing some grandiose visions of himself.

I believe it is his fate to go down as a loser, which shouldn't surprise anyone who knows anything about him and his past.

 

[theeedude]

There will be "foundations" set up to whitewash his legacy as soon as he leaves office, if not earlier.

 

[Lemon law]

One can perhaps compare Bush to various incompetent presidents------Grant though personally honest
allowed his administration to be run by the totally corrupt. Buchannon fiddled while the country decended into civil war-------Hoover--had no novel solution to the great depression------LBJ let his ego suck him into an unwinnable war-------Ronald Reagan's defecit spending and cowboy foreign policy still leave a lasting legacy. Warren Harding was just a incompetent. And there is something to said for Clinton---who had one of the most honest administrations in recent history--even though his achilles heel was personal sexual perversation---Clinton's administration was far better in that he failed to do foolish things in regard to national policy and the country prospered.---a luxury only reserved for Presidents who live in calm times.-----but the power of the Presidency is quite apparent
to anyone who notices that the President also has the power to turn a small problem into a giant problem.

But I can't think of any President in US history that have made so many bad sins of commission, that has forced through so much bad social policy, and has done so much to damage the standing of the United States in the international community as GWB. Its almost like either he is doing it delibertly
or just lacks any forsight.----if GWB were a chess player-----I serious doubt he could see a half a move ahead.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: kstu
...as one of the worst presidents ever.

No. He will go down as THE worst president ever, a title previously held by Richard Nixon. It remains for someone in the future to be worse.

I hope that never happens. I hope the country survives having this POS administration.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: kstu
...as one of the worst presidents ever.

No. He will go down as THE worst president ever, a title previously held by Richard Nixon. It remains for someone in the future to be worse.

I hope that never happens. I hope the country survives having this POS administration.

Nixon had some redeaming qualities.....

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: K1052
It is impossible to judge accurately how kind history will be to Bush's presidency at this time.

The bar is pretty high for worst president anyway. LBJ got thousands killed in Vietnam, Buchanan let the next guy elected deal with his mess (immenent US civil war), Andew Jackson botched the reconstruction in the worst ways possible and got himself impeached, FDR left us a leagacy of an immense federal government that is only getting bigger, Jefferson and Madison get credit for disarming us then declaring war on the world's formost military power, and the list goes on.....

Andrew Johnson

Yea, I realized my mistake in my second post (and second cup of coffee).

The people in here need to crack a history book or two before proclaiming Bush the worst president in US history.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: kstu
...as one of the worst presidents ever.

No. He will go down as THE worst president ever, a title previously held by Richard Nixon. It remains for someone in the future to be worse.

I hope that never happens. I hope the country survives having this POS administration.

Nixon had some redeaming qualities.....

Yeah: he resigned.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Strk
Nixon had some redeaming qualities.....

Nixon's ONLY redeaming quality was that he could serve as a benchmark bad example that Bushwhacko could exceed. :|

Nixon was a paranoid speed freak who, like Bush, abused his authority to spy on American citizens. His crimes were the reason FISA was enacted in the first place. His own oval office taping system documented that he was deeply involved in the criminal cover up in Watergate.

Nixon was evil, but he wasn't stupid. Bush is both. :|

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: hemiram
I think you are totally correct. As far as I'm concerned, even though Nixon was a paranoid crook, and Carter was totally worthless as a President, they both tower over Bush, the worst President, easily in my lifetime. IMO, of course.

I voted for him the first time, I'm sad to say, but the second time, I would have voted for just about anyone on the other side. At that point, I already had enough, and now, it's 10X worse.

He asked a question, how can he be totally correct about a question?

 

[Lemon law]

Richard Nixon is someone I still love to hate. But I still have to agree that the man did have some redeeming qualities. Behind that five o'clock face lurked a first class mind and he did have vision and forsight. His knowledge of world affairs was and still is somewhat legendary. Tales still abound how he could--at the drop of a hat--discuss at leagth the problems facing any nation, who are the players involved, and how public policy could help.--but when it came to paranoia and the end justifying the means many agree Nixon fell way short of what he could have been.

Sadly I see no such similar tales about GWB.------or allegations of a first class mind---or any ability to look beyond total self-delusion.

 

[musicc]

Bust did something good for everyone. Remember do not call list. That was great.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Strk
Nixon had some redeaming qualities.....

Nixon's ONLY redeaming quality was that he could serve as a benchmark bad example that Bushwhacko could exceed. :|

Nixon was a paranoid speed freak who, like Bush, abused his authority to spy on American citizens. His crimes were the reason FISA was enacted in the first place. His own oval office taping system documented that he was deeply involved in the criminal cover up in Watergate.

Nixon was evil, but he wasn't stupid. Bush is both. :|

Yeah, but he made a great line for Star Trek.

 

[techs]

I think history will judge Bush not on Iraq, whatever happens there.
Bushes real failures were the economy, political discourse and civil liberties.

The economy: Gargantuan failure to continue the bi-partisan progress to give us surpluses to deal with the looming SS shortfall. Plus the failure to protect American workers and busineses from predatory nations like China.

Political discourse: The introduction of the tactics of propaganda as used in Nazi Germany. The attempts to keep his political opponents from voting. The loss of faith in the actual voting and counting of votes.

Civil Liberties: The end of privacy. The philosphy the government can do anything not prohibited by the Constitution instead of only the things the Constitution says it can do. The secrecy of all things Executive.

When judgement day comes for the Bush economic failures the working class in this country will find they can not protest. The surveilance by the government will cost them their jobs if they dissent. Whenever an election is close the losers will not believe the voting was fair. When they try and protest they will be tracked down using the new anti-terrorism laws and locked up without charges.
Any candidate who runs opposing this will either be disgraced using surveilance or if they have not done anything wrong disgraced using the new weapon of lies supported by propaganda outlets (news sources) posing as legitimate news sources (Fox)

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
You guys are on drugs or something.

Bush will be regarded even better than Reagan as the greatest President ever.

:thumbsup:

oooh the irony




------

I agree with most of you that it is Iraq. I think already he has HUGE points against him for Iraq...and things are not looking to become better

 

[Zebo]

Iraq won't hurt him - just a bunch of brown skinned foriegners to americans eyes 2 or 200,000 dead makes no diff... reagan/LBJ and FDR and others did far worse - Clintons killed more Iraqis than Bush.

The guy is a total crook. I think when historians look back - it will be the mass transfer of tax payments and furture tax payer debt to well healed corps with proper connections. It will be the appointment of industry lobbiests to all regularotry positions in government effectivly ignoring all rule of law setup before Bush came though "selective enforcement" of law. It will be no bid contracts and bonuses even for work not done. You really think 9 billion is just "missing" in iraq? Or it's sitting in a swiss bank of his frat buddies?

I think Bush will be last president as america stops it's GDP growth which will hurt him tremedously - some due to powers beyond his control such as peak oil and some directly his fault like debt and selling out american industry and working class to his lords at WTO.

I'm not sure the "police state" lover will get much attention either as it's gotten worse with every president since FDR and will continue to grow after Bush leaves. It's all relative. It's a twofold problem first is increasing population density mandates people be in more control and in line with a norm to prevent civil unrest. And second politicans love power and using an unconsititutional apparatus is a natural embodyment of thier charachter.

 

[Lemon law]

To Zebo,

While I agree with most of your post-----------------WHERE IN THE WORLD DO YOU COME UP WITH THE CRAZY NOTION that Clinton has killed more Iraqis than GWB??????????????????????????????

 

[Zebo]

Sanctions.

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0401c.asp

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
To Zebo,

While I agree with most of your post-----------------WHERE IN THE WORLD DO YOU COME UP WITH THE CRAZY NOTION that Clinton has killed more Iraqis than GWB??????????????????????????????

Another grim look at why the Iraqis would never have look favorably upon our occupation, and yes, clinton is responsible for starving some say millions of iraqis.

Just to give you a insight as to how us imperialism is not a republican monopoly.
It is a very shameful piece of history americans still have not recognized as to why the world is so disgusted with our foriegn policy.


http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011203/cortright
The grim question of how many people have died in Iraq has sparked heated debate over the years. The controversy dates from 1995, when researchers with a Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) study in Iraq wrote to The Lancet, the journal of the British Medical Society, asserting that sanctions were responsible for the deaths of 567,000 Iraqi children. The New York Times picked up the story and declared "Iraq Sanctions Kill Children." CBS followed up with a segment on 60 Minutes that repeated the numbers and depicted sanctions as a murderous assault on children. This was the program in which UN ambassador (and later Secretary of State) Madeleine Albright, when asked about these numbers, coldly stated, "The price is worth it."



Albright was also the one who basiclly gave the green light to saddam to invade kuwait, then double crossed him once the corporate world realized how much money they were getting screwed out of, thus first gulf war.

Granted, the neocons already had their corporate sponsored claws into the us by this point, (since the 50's) being that a president is basiclly nothing but a figurehead for big profit. Politics are all smoke and mirrors anyway.

the whole liberal vs. conservative rep vs.dem thing is not even a real issue, if we didn't have our apathetic heads in the sand we would realize its the military industrial complex of america vs. the world. Little distractions like social issues keep our eyes off the big picture.


"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." -President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his 1961 farewell address


Eisenhower warned of this menace to freedom so long ago, now he rolls in his grave at what we have sacrificed in the name of war profiteers.

 

[eilute]

Originally posted by: kstu
...as one of the worst presidents ever.

Basically, in 25 years, what will we read about our current president in our children's history books.

It's too soon to say. History books might not connect him to the giant deficit and the fallout from Iraq.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Lemon law
To Zebo,

While I agree with most of your post-----------------WHERE IN THE WORLD DO YOU COME UP WITH THE CRAZY NOTION that Clinton has killed more Iraqis than GWB??????????????????????????????

Another grim look at why the Iraqis would never have look favorably upon our occupation, and yes, clinton is responsible for starving some say millions of iraqis.

Just to give you a insight as to how us imperialism is not a republican monopoly.
It is a very shameful piece of history americans still have not recognized as to why the world is so disgusted with our foriegn policy.


http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011203/cortright
The grim question of how many people have died in Iraq has sparked heated debate over the years. The controversy dates from 1995, when researchers with a Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) study in Iraq wrote to The Lancet, the journal of the British Medical Society, asserting that sanctions were responsible for the deaths of 567,000 Iraqi children. The New York Times picked up the story and declared "Iraq Sanctions Kill Children." CBS followed up with a segment on 60 Minutes that repeated the numbers and depicted sanctions as a murderous assault on children. This was the program in which UN ambassador (and later Secretary of State) Madeleine Albright, when asked about these numbers, coldly stated, "The price is worth it."



Albright was also the one who basiclly gave the green light to saddam to invade kuwait, then double crossed him once the corporate world realized how much money they were getting screwed out of, thus first gulf war.

Granted, the neocons already had their corporate sponsored claws into the us by this point, (since the 50's) being that a president is basiclly nothing but a figurehead for big profit. Politics are all smoke and mirrors anyway.

the whole liberal vs. conservative rep vs.dem thing is not even a real issue, if we didn't have our apathetic heads in the sand we would realize its the military industrial complex of america vs. the world. Little distractions like social issues keep our eyes off the big picture.


"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." -President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his 1961 farewell address


Eisenhower warned of this menace to freedom so long ago, now he rolls in his grave at what we have sacrificed in the name of war profiteers.

Link please about Albright giving Saddam green light to invade, and then corporations realizing they were losing money sparking GW1??