Worst President Ever?

[HoreTore]

You realize that by your criteria, we also lost World War II? No, HoreTore, I fear you're indulging in hyperbole. A quagmire does not equal defeat. And failing to distinguish between the justified and necessary war in Afghanistan and the absolute waste of time and blood in Iraq weakens your argument.

No, you(as in the US) haven't lost the war yet. Bush, however, has. When you start a war you expect to take a couple of months, and then can't finish it after 5 years(the length of WW2), I'd say that should count as a defeat for the guy in power.

As for Afghanistan, I'd say it's not won yet because of the Iraq war. If the resources for the Iraq war were to be spent in Afghanistan, I think it would've been successful by now. So it counts as a personal defeat for Mr. Bush too. The US itself, however, can still win the war.

Also, I didn't distinguish between the two wars because I didn't comment on whether or not they were just wars.

[Proletariat]

No, you(as in the US) haven't lost the war yet. Bush, however, has. When you start a war you expect to take a couple of months, and then can't finish it after 5 years(the length of WW2), I'd say that should count as a defeat for the guy in power.

Then you could have a loser and winner of the same war from the same side. Call the guy a moron or a war bungler or whatever, but he's not a loser yet. You don't call a runner in a relay race a loser if it's the next team mate who over takes the opponent.

Edit: Slightly on topic, there's little value in the list and ranking itself. Lemur and Adrian bring up the far more interesting topic of why this conversation has begun already

[ajaxfetish]

I wonder, should modern-day morality come into things when it comes to choosing worst presidents?

I don't see how it could not. Judging 'best' or 'worst' is a moral judgment, as they are the superlatives of 'good' and 'bad,' very much moral concepts. If we were to try judging them by the moral standards of their own times, it could be an interesting exercise, but would likely be ultimately fruitless. Do we really understand the morality of their days well enough to use it as a benchmark? Plus we would be rehashing old arguments, as they were already judged by the standards of their own days, by the journalists and historians of their own days. That stuff's already been written.

As I understand it, the purpose of history is to reinterpret the past through today's perspective, through the lens of modern values and interests. How else could we keep it relevant? Grizzly responded to you that we should use economy, foreign policy, and domestic policy as a yardstick instead of 'morality.' I don't see how that is any more objective. What makes a 'good' economy, or a 'bad' foreign policy? However we choose to measure the value of American presidents, it will be morally subjective, and it will be according to modern moral standards.

Ajax

[HoreTore]

Then you could have a loser and winner of the same war from the same side.

Yup. The country, the US, may win, but Mr. Bush personally has lost. He expected and said he would win in a short time, he has failed to do so in his presidency. He did not win, therefore he lost. His successor won't be a team mate either, neither Obama, Clinton or McCain represent his views. He's forced to let another team clean up his mess.

[LittleGrizzly]

Grizzly responded to you that we should use economy, foreign policy, and domestic policy as a yardstick instead of 'morality.' I don't see how that is any more objective. What makes a 'good' economy, or a 'bad' foreign policy? However we choose to measure the value of American presidents, it will be morally subjective, and it will be according to modern moral standards.

I would say judge on the results of the economic and foriegn policy actions taken by the president, you can see which presidents did well for the economy and you can see what results came from thier foriegn policy actions and whether this benefitted america.

[Xiahou]

Yup. The country, the US, may win, but Mr. Bush personally has lost. He expected and said he would win in a short time, he has failed to do so in his presidency. He did not win, therefore he lost. His successor won't be a team mate either, neither Obama, Clinton or McCain represent his views. He's forced to let another team clean up his mess.

That's a nonsense standard. By the same, FDR died a miserable failure, having lost WW2.

Historians are not just desinterested observers, they are participants in today's debates and issues just like every other American. I think that on average this poll says more about them as a professional group than it says about any president of the United States of America.

It would be more interesting to compare a ranking made by historians, one by financial experts and one by, say, metal workers. Now that might tell us something interesting about the present state of the U.S. (though not about this President and previous ones).

I agree with all of that.

[ajaxfetish]

I would say judge on the results of the economic and foriegn policy actions taken by the president, you can see which presidents did well for the economy and you can see what results came from thier foriegn policy actions and whether this benefitted america.

Again, you would be subjectively determining whether their actions 'benefitted' America based on a modern moral standard.

Ajax

[HoreTore]

That's a nonsense standard. By the same, FDR died a miserable failure, having lost WW2.

Bah, I'd say that Chamberlain's policy is a better comparison. And when did we start counting him amongst the winners? When Roosevelt died, the war was basically won. How far from victory is Iraq and Afghanistan? I'd say they're not even half-finished. In fact, they're a lot worse off now than when the invasions were going on.

[Furious Mental]

The American war effort in WWII was making obvious progress towards total victory within about a year of Pearl Harbour. The American war effort in Iraq is making progress but progress towards nowhere, because Bush rooted the country so much in the first couple of years after the invasion that it basically can't be put back together properly. It has ended up being governed on the basis of ethnic and tribal compacts and a complex web of patronage, like countless other states that ultimately disintegrated in an orgy of violence.

[Pannonian]

Dubya looks awful because of what he started with, and what he's going to end up with. If your country starts off in poor economic shape and external enemies threatening to extinguish it, but you end up with a country in decent shape and with good international relations guaranteeing your future, one can say you did a good job of your guardianship. Bush's problem is that he turned the country round in the opposite direction, starting with a country in decent economic shape and with the world united behind the US in sympathy for 9/11, but then threw all of this away.

[Ronin]

Dubya holds the record for perhaps the quickest flush down the toilet of the good will that existed in the world for the US after 9-11.

after 9-11 there was talk of brotherhood with America, the world was shocked at the violence of that attack and would basically bend over backwards to help out....

then "you´re either with us or you´re with the terrorists" speech basically made half the world go " you Mr. President" in a heartbeat.

and then Iraq....what to say about that?....he couldn´t catch Bin Laden (not necessarily his fault) so he tried to morph Hussein into Bin Laden, lied to the UN and pushed the US into an unnecessary war before the work in Afghanistan was even done, by this point the only real ally the US had left was England because Blair was basically Dubya´s prison

so we reach the end of his presidency, Bin Laden is still producing his "greatest hits volume 35", Iraq has been fumbled up so badly that Islamic extremists have basically their recruiting work done for them for the next 25 years and the economy is in the crapper.

let´s not even start talking about the environment....but hey...at least he stopped the queers from getting married right?

worst ever?...don´t know...that´s for history to say....but the only doubt is how near the top of that list he is gonna end up on.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

How about this title - "The Worst Generation's picks for Worst President"

Arguing the comparative worth of the "generations" is, I submit, even LESS likely to reach any sort of concensus than would an evaluation of U.S. Chief Executives.



Note:

A lot depends on what criteria you wish to use when measuring the worth of a presidency -- you should see the rank order created by those who prefer strict constitutionalism as their metric.

[Don Corleone]

after 9-11 there was talk of brotherhood with America, the world was shocked at the violence of that attack and would basically bend over backwards to help out....

then "you´re either with us or you´re with the terrorists" speech basically made half the world go " you Mr. President" in a heartbeat.

Interesting viewpoint. Excepting Iraq for a moment, and I can, because the infamous "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists" was made when Bush was making demands on the Taleban to turn over Al-Queda suspects, I find a discontinuity implicit in your statements.

So what exactly does "bending over backwards to help out..." mean to you, exactly? A quick, gruff "This shall not be tolerated" statement and then forget the whole thing? A cultural sanction such as not sending the Lisbon symphony to Kabul that winter?

Bush had to invade Afghanistan. The Taliban left him absolutely no choice. By authorizing Al-Queda to plan and launch the attacks from their territory and then return to their country for safe haven, they were declaring themselves four-square behind the terrorists, regardless of their lies and double-speak at press conferences. And it was this duplicity which Bush was highlighting with the "you're with us or with the terrorists" speech.

[Adrian II]

Bush had to invade Afghanistan. The Taliban left him absolutely no choice.

That's clear as crystal. The U.S. had to do it, they were the only country able to pull it off, and they did so practically on their own. They made some big mistakes, but I doubt that any other country would have managed a similar invasion without committing them. Since then Nato has shared in the outcome ('you break it, you own it') and in the burden of policing and reconstruction. Over 30 countries are participating. Cooperation has had its ups and downs, but in as far as this sort of operation can be succesful, it certainly has been almost since day one. The Taliban were chased out of Kabul, sheik Omar and Osama were forced to flee and a new internationally recognized and supported regime was installed. That means Bush won his Afghanistan war, period.

Alas, then came Iraq, Guantanamo, Kyoto, lies, damn lies, freedom fries...

[Ronin]

Interesting viewpoint. Excepting Iraq for a moment, and I can, because the infamous "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists" was made when Bush was making demands on the Taleban to turn over Al-Queda suspects, I find a discontinuity implicit in your statements.

So what exactly does "bending over backwards to help out..." mean to you, exactly? A quick, gruff "This shall not be tolerated" statement and then forget the whole thing? A cultural sanction such as not sending the Lisbon symphony to Kabul that winter?

Bush had to invade Afghanistan. The Taliban left him absolutely no choice. By authorizing Al-Queda to plan and launch the attacks from their territory and then return to their country for safe haven, they were declaring themselves four-square behind the terrorists, regardless of their lies and double-speak at press conferences. And it was this duplicity which Bush was highlighting with the "you're with us or with the terrorists" speech.

I´m pretty sure that Bush was talking to the international community with that "you´re with us or them" line...at least I can tell you it was not interpreted over here like being targeted exclusively at the taliban..there´s a significant difference between expecting your friends to help you and expecting your friends to be yes men basically....then again that´s why Bush and Blair were so tight.
The problem was not with the actions in the ground the US was undertaking at that time, I agree that the invasion of Afghanistan was justified, the problem was with the tone of rethoric that the white house started using that turned a lot of people off.....the blunders that followed only augmented the rift that was started by that speech in my opinion.

the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.....especially when I disapprove of it´s methods.

[Redleg]

Interesting discussion, reminds me of the discussion in the media about when Clinton left office.

Now some bring up interesting points but fail to consider all the facts, just like the Historians are doing. This list is primarily a focus on current politics not on lasting effects of the president.

I find it interesting that anyone who studies economics with any serious attention to detail blames the 2001-2002 downturn in the economy primarily on the current President, that would require President Bush to have been deciding economic policy in the time period of 1996 to 2000. The United States Government works on a 5 year budget plan with adjustments made every year. Greenspan was deciding the Fed Prime Interest rate from his economic models, with little influence from either President. Economic stimilus packages take at least 6 monthes to get thru congress and to the consumers of this nation. By September 2001 President Bush's Economic policies were just beginning to get out of congress and onto the street before the attack. Now blaming the current path to recession on President Bush and his adminstration is one thing that would be accurate, but the 2001-2002 downturn had several major factors contributing to the downturn beyond this presidents control or influence. Are is someone trying to blame the Dot.com bubble brusting, and the next being the finicial impact of the 9/11 attack. Or how about blaming Eron on President Bush? I find that even more amusing since a corruption scheme that severe normally takes years to take hold.

As for Horetore's standard about losing wars - way off base. Wars are determined by who leaves the conflict first, be it through a peace with honor, Vietnam - a lose, or outright defeat, Germany in WW2, or a stalemate with a truce, Korea. What we currently have is two conflicts that are stuck in the stagnation phase, one which can accurately be called a quiremire, or the beginning to of the end, or what ever term that describes a loss of ability to successful conclude the conflict. What Bush is guilty of is mis-management of the War against Terror in Afganstan by distraction into Iraq. That is a reason to proof assertion of fact into the discussion. The rest of you comment borders on what Tribesman would call bullocks.

All in All I find the list primarily as several have commented an indication of historical discussion geared at current politics. Given that this is an election year where the candidates are all very similiar, it makes it even more plausible.

Another election cycle of not electing the best candidate for the job, but voting for the individual you think will be the lesser of two evils.

American Politics at its worst.

[Don Corleone]

Well, you and Adrian both make valid points. I'm not making any sort of statement about Bush-diplomacy (the oxymoron was too delicious to resist), or his foreign policy, etcetera. I was speaking explilcitly with regard to the "You're with us or you're with them" statement.

I never realized that Europe took that statement so personally, I thought it was pretty clear that it was directed at 2 parties who were trying to play both sides of the street: the Taleban in Afghanistan and Musharaff in Pakistan. In light of your statement, all I can say is Colin Powell isn't the great communicator I thought he was, because that was his explicit mission.... spend the next three weeks roaming Europe and other friendly places to explain exactly what the President meant by that statement.

I'll grant you that the Bush administration comes off as cocky, arrogant and dismissive. And that's just to their party faithful. . But on this particular issue, that wasn't the point, the president was drawing the line in the sand. Musharaff walked over it to our side, the Taleban stayed on the other.

[Furious Mental]

"So what exactly does "bending over backwards to help out..." mean to you, exactly? A quick, gruff "This shall not be tolerated" statement and then forget the whole thing? A cultural sanction such as not sending the Lisbon symphony to Kabul that winter?"

Before Afghanistan was invaded, NATO countries were offering much larger forces than are presently there to assist and without caveats, except that it would have to be a NATO operation. However, Bush, his cabinet, and US military leaders did not want to surrender their prerogatives to any sort of collective political and military arrangement, and they did not need contributions from NATO allies for the invasion, so they rebuffed the immediate offers of troops. This did not generate any good will and of course by the time ISAF was created all the previously gung ho governments were much less enthusiastic, so they offered less forces and with many more conditions on their deployment. Any possibility of extracting greater commitments from the countries was ruined by the invasion of Iraq- those that approved sent their extra troops to an overwhelmingly unpopular war which soured public opinion on both operations, those that disapproved simply sulked and decided that they weren't going to do anything extra for ISAF.

[HoreTore]

As for Horetore's standard about losing wars - way off base. Wars are determined by who leaves the conflict first, be it through a peace with honor, Vietnam - a lose, or outright defeat, Germany in WW2, or a stalemate with a truce, Korea. What we currently have is two conflicts that are stuck in the stagnation phase, one which can accurately be called a quiremire, or the beginning to of the end, or what ever term that describes a loss of ability to successful conclude the conflict. What Bush is guilty of is mis-management of the War against Terror in Afganstan by distraction into Iraq. That is a reason to proof assertion of fact into the discussion. The rest of you comment borders on what Tribesman would call bullocks.

All true. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan isn't lost. Never said it was though...

I was talking about Mr. Bush's personal goal. He thought that the war would be won within a few months. When it is now going on for the 5th year, you can't call that anything but a failure from Bush.

[ICantSpellDawg]

All true. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan isn't lost. Never said it was though...

I was talking about Mr. Bush's personal goal. He thought that the war would be won within a few months. When it is now going on for the 5th year, you can't call that anything but a failure from Bush.

War's have a tendency to drag on. If you want to go to war and get the support of Congress it is probably best to present the best case scenario. You could instead present the worst case scenario - but you may be called a pessimist and never get necessary (to your goals) things done with congressional authority.

BTW- The "war" against Baathist Iraq already ended successfully, but the occupation was miscalculated. There is no war going on between the United States and the enemy that it was fighting during the 2nd Gulf War.

Occupations are different from War. When dealing with technicalities such as titles of conflicts you must stay within those parameters when making technical statements.

[ajaxfetish]

All true. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan isn't lost. Never said it was though...

I was talking about Mr. Bush's personal goal. He thought that the war would be won within a few months. When it is now going on for the 5th year, you can't call that anything but a failure from Bush.

Well, then I'd agree with you that Bush failed to achieve a goal. That's different from losing a war, however. I don't see how one can lose a war that's still in progress (or if, as Tuff puts it, you consider it a war already won but followed by an unsuccessful occupation, then you've certainly not lost a war).

Ajax

[LittleGrizzly]

Again, you would be subjectively determining whether their actions 'benefitted' America based on a modern moral standard.

judging thier effects on the economy is a mathmatical exercise morals do not come into it., infact with our greater modern expertise we could more accurately judge a president on his economic record. Morals partially come into judging foriegn policy but can be easily removed just stick to factual data rather than opinions of events.

[ajaxfetish]

Again, you would be subjectively determining whether their actions 'benefitted' America based on a modern moral standard.

judging thier effects on the economy is a mathmatical exercise morals do not come into it., infact with our greater modern expertise we could more accurately judge a president on his economic record. Morals partially come into judging foriegn policy but can be easily removed just stick to factual data rather than opinions of events.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't think it's possible to evaluate ideas such as benefit without a subjective value judgment entering into the equation.

Ajax

[HoreTore]

Well, then I'd agree with you that Bush failed to achieve a goal. That's different from losing a war, however. I don't see how one can lose a war that's still in progress

Well this thread is about the president of the US, not the US the nation, and as such you have to judge the goals of the individual presidents. And for Bush, that means a big, fat

FAILURE

[Redleg]

Well this thread is about the president of the US, not the US the nation, and as such you have to judge the goals of the individual presidents. And for Bush, that means a big, fat

FAILURE

Then again one would have to also understand the policy that the President was attempting to accomplish before passing that judgement. What I find amazing is that once again we find you changing what you said to something else when your hyperbole point was shown to be completely incorrect.

[HoreTore]

Then again one would have to also understand the policy that the President was attempting to accomplish before passing that judgement.

His goal, as he told us, was to quickly invade, throw away Saddam, install democracy and freedom, plus throwing out al-qaida and WMD's, making the world a happy place. He did not achieve that.

What I find amazing is that once again we find you changing what you said to something else when your hyperbole point was shown to be completely incorrect.

Huh? I fully stand by my original point/statement that Bush is the worst president of all time. How has that changed?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Huh? I fully stand by my original point/statement that Bush is the worst president of all time. How has that changed?

Horetore - you should know by now that this forum is not for changing peoples minds who are closed, but for arguing with the closed minded to convince others that they are closed-minded.

I think that most people arguing in this thread have come to the conclusion that it may be hasty to make a conclusion about who the worst president was.

[gibsonsg91921]

Hey, thousands of our own children are dying on the streets, but hey! Let's bomb some Iraqis so their children grow up with revenge on their minds. Obama wants goodwill. Call it idealistic, but saying war will resolve the Western-Middle-Eastern emnity is downright folly.

[Lemur]

Call it idealistic, but saying war will resolve the Western-Middle-Eastern emnity is downright folly.

Well, war certainly can be an answer, but I see what you're getting at. Let's try a less emotional formulation:

I've become much more leery of unilateralism, pre-emption, and occupation as effective tools in the war against Islamism. But that's not because I want to surrender or have gone soft. It's because I want to win; and I don't think our recent strategy has been the right one. I also don't believe you counter terror with torture or fear with more fear. We can do better. And we can learn from mistakes.

The enemy is still real; and in its extreme forms must be defeated, not engaged.

[Redleg]

His goal, as he told us, was to quickly invade, throw away Saddam, install democracy and freedom, plus throwing out al-qaida and WMD's, making the world a happy place. He did not achieve that.

So we get a further definition one that is easily shown for what it is

invade Iraq - done
Saddam remove from power - done,
Democracy installed - Elections have been done
Freedom installed - working
Throw out Al-qaida - actually I think it was to fight Al-qaida and defeat them in Iraq, a big difference in definitions. Maybe you should clarify more.
WMD's - in a way done - proved that Iraq did not have any usable WMD's
Make the world a happy place - I dont remember reading this as one of his presidential objectives.

So by your own definition I dont see a time limited that he imposed on himself.
And I see some more self imposed hyperbole imposed onto the discussion.

Huh? I fully stand by my original point/statement that Bush is the worst president of all time. How has that changed?

Lost war to failure of policy. A big difference in how you are now defining that worst president ever. Now again you might want to chose your words a bit more carefully.