Worst President Ever?

[Redleg]

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.

Sssh - your about to ruin my amusment.

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.

Oh I agree with this statement completely, historians who review this early - while the man is still in office are doing so from a political agenda not a historical one.

[Furious Mental]

The claim that Iraq is a functioning democracy where human rights are respected is laughable. Democracy is not having a mullah and his mates in the police tell you how to vote. Freedom is not getting shot in the street for having a hair cut.

[Redleg]

The claim that Iraq is a functioning democracy where human rights are respected is laughable. Democracy is not having a mullah and his mates in the police tell you how to vote. Freedom is not getting shot in the street for having a hair cut.

LOL did I say functional Democracy or did I say a democracy has been installed and elections having been conducted. I can name other nations that have a just as brutal or even worse forms of democracy in their nations.

Rather assumptous of you to believe I said functioning democracy from that, or that I implied that it was a robust democracy.

Now are you attempting to state that no democracy exists in Iraq? Notice I have not placed words into your statement that are not there.

[Furious Mental]

Oh I'm sorry, when you put "democracy installed" in a list of achievements I thought that would presuppose "functioning democracy" rather than "elections where people vote for whichever communitarian bloc controls their neighbourhood" to create a parliament where only a quarter of the representatives show up. Any tin pot country can hold dysfunctional elections like that and create a sham parliament that hardly does anything. Given the stated intentions of your president in invading the country and what could potentially have been achieved were it not for the obstinate stupidity of he and his offsiders, I count the state of the Iraqi political system as an utter failure. If you think it is unfair to judge Bush by his own criteria, please say why.

[ajaxfetish]

If you think it is unfair to judge Bush by his own criteria, please say why.

Well, it might be unfair in Bush's case, because I don't think we can consider him able enough to choose reasonable criteria, but oh well.

Based on Redleg's original reply to HoreTore, I don't think he's standing up to defend the Bush plan as a great success, but making the point, as others of us have, that the criticism should be accurate. It's a little pointless to make up things to fault Bush for when he's already given us so much material to work with. Redleg called HoreTore on the specifics of his accusation, and was very precise in his reading and use of words, which is why

Oh I'm sorry, when you put "democracy installed" in a list of achievements I thought that would presuppose . . .

It's unwise to presuppose in such situations.

Ajax

[Furious Mental]

I don't see why not. If such things cannot be presupposed then the words are meaningless. I could say "I will build a bridge over that river" then erect some half-arsed edifice that no one dare cross because it could fall down at any moment, and say I that I still built a bridge.

[ajaxfetish]

Yes, you could. And if someone were to say you failed because you did not build a bridge they would be mistaken. If someone were to say you built a crappy, half-arsed edifice that no one dare cross because it could fall down at any moment, then they'd have a very good point.

Ajax

[Abokasee]

We can be sure of one thing, he has failed more than he has succeded

[Redleg]

Oh I'm sorry, when you put "democracy installed" in a list of achievements I thought that would presuppose "functioning democracy" rather than "elections where people vote for whichever communitarian bloc controls their neighbourhood" to create a parliament where only a quarter of the representatives show up. Any tin pot country can hold dysfunctional elections like that and create a sham parliament that hardly does anything. Given the stated intentions of your president in invading the country and what could potentially have been achieved were it not for the obstinate stupidity of he and his offsiders, I count the state of the Iraqi political system as an utter failure. If you think it is unfair to judge Bush by his own criteria, please say why.

One must be very careful with their assumptions, they often prove to be a distraction.

[Furious Mental]

"Yes, you could. "

I disagree. I don't think anyone would accept such a pedantry- as a matter of common sense saying one will do something implies that one will do it to a certain standard. This is certainly the case in the context of public policy. When Bush said he would install democracy in Iraq people took that to mean, and he knew and intended them to take that to mean, a functioning democracy. If he had said "We will install democracy in Iraq, but it might just be a half-arsed and unstable sort of participatory republic that will collapse after a while" how much support would he have gotten?

[ICantSpellDawg]

We can be sure of one thing, he has failed more than he has succeded

What do you mean "failed"? He succeeded in rallying the American people to go to war, succeeded in working a record breaking invasion, succeeded in winning a second term, succeeded in avoiding a second massive terrorist attack on our soil over almost 8 years, succeeded, succeeded, succeeded. Couple those with the others. He has failed on some things such as immigration reform, but others are still up in the air - such as a prolonged occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Look failure up in a dictionary - do you mean that certain fine point expectations were not met? Oh god no - not for a president!

If I buy a car that is very expensive and it turns out that i might not have enough money to pay the monthly payments, you can't say that I "failed" to pay when the check hasn't even come to be due.

Historians shouldn't be talking about failure as a fact until it becomes one, which I'm not saying is outside of the realm of possibility. Be fair and honest.

[CrossLOPER]

SUCCESS SUCCESS SUCCESS ALL ACROSS THE BOARD.

[HoreTore]

What do you mean "failed"? He succeeded in rallying the American people to go to war, succeeded in working a record breaking invasion, succeeded in winning a second term, succeeded in avoiding a second massive terrorist attack on our soil over almost 8 years, succeeded, succeeded, succeeded. Couple those with the others. He has failed on some things such as immigration reform, but others are still up in the air - such as a prolonged occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Spoken like a true believer.




There are still a few people left who praise Stalin too, but they are rather few.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Spoken like a true believer.




There are still a few people left who praise Stalin too, but they are rather few.

Aren't you one of them?

Oh, I forgot - you are the communist who's system works.


Bush has not been my favorite, but pre-maturely judging him as having more failures than successes is just that. Be reasonable, Iraq is not over just yet.

Some people are so eager to see Bush fail that they would trade the dignity and sacrifice of those who have tried so hard. Be careful of that.

Bush has primarily failed to rally the American people and sell them on his positions like other presidents have been able to do a bit more effectively - that is cut and dry.

[HoreTore]

Aren't you one of them?

Oh, I forgot - you are the communist who's system works.

One might say social democrat, like most of europe.

Bush has not been my favorite, but pre-maturely judging him as having more failures than successes is just that. Be reasonable, Iraq is not over just yet.

Some people are so eager to see Bush fail that they would trade the dignity and sacrifice of those who have tried so hard. Be careful of that.

Bush has primarily failed to rally the American people and sell them on his positions like other presidents have been able to do a bit more effectively - that is cut and dry.

Take a quick look at the state of the US economy, the one Bush had 8 years not to screw up...

[ICantSpellDawg]

One might say social democrat, like most of europe.



Take a quick look at the state of the US economy, the one Bush had 8 years not to screw up...

What did he do to screw it up exactly? Iraq? that is what is sinking us? I'd like to hear your opinions on that.

We are living in the age of China and we are still wearing the crown. Thanks George Bush II for single handedly blowing it in 8 years.

[LittleGrizzly]

He succeeded in rallying the American people to go to war

America didn't need rallying to goto war with Afghanastan i think 9/11 managed that, Iraq pretty much the same thing, just had to drop the words Al-Qaeda and WMD and that case was made.

succeeded in working a record breaking invasion

Can this really be put down to Bush ? any american president would have pulled off the invasion with a decent enough general in charge

succeeded in avoiding a second massive terrorist attack on our soil over almost 8 years

Again can this really be put down to bush ? i think you can only give him credit for not having another 9/11 if you put the blame on him for 9/11. Only if you think contraversial things such as "enhanced interigation" and the patriot act helped avoid anoher 9/11 otherwise the CIA acted as they would under any other president after a massive terrorist attack.

I suppose failure may not be the right word as he did things he wanted to do as president, they just didn't work out that well.

[ICantSpellDawg]

He succeeded in rallying the American people to go to war

America didn't need rallying to goto war with Afghanastan i think 9/11 managed that, Iraq pretty much the same thing, just had to drop the words Al-Qaeda and WMD and that case was made.

succeeded in working a record breaking invasion

Can this really be put down to Bush ? any american president would have pulled off the invasion with a decent enough general in charge

succeeded in avoiding a second massive terrorist attack on our soil over almost 8 years

Again can this really be put down to bush ? i think you can only give him credit for not having another 9/11 if you put the blame on him for 9/11. Only if you think contraversial things such as "enhanced interigation" and the patriot act helped avoid anoher 9/11 otherwise the CIA acted as they would under any other president after a massive terrorist attack.

I suppose failure may not be the right word as he did things he wanted to do as president, they just didn't work out that well.

Hah. What you are actually saying is that Bush can only take bad credit, never good. You look over him when there is success and target him distinctly when their is failure. Of course you are going to find more failures than successes!

Without Rumsfeld, the invasion would have taken tons more troops and much more time. Bush picked Rumsfeld. He should be given credit for doing so. He should also be held responsible for allowing Rumsfeld to go in with so few troops successfully but have no contingency plan in the event of likely insurrection. Credit should be taken away for doing that.

Some are now saying that Reagan wasn't responsible for ending the Cold War, Gorbachev was. I agree with the idea that both were responsible, among many others. To take away credit from one and lump it all onto another is not fair or reasonable unless they were really the only player, which is almost never the case in massive, international social occurrences.

Give and take credit fairly.

[Kralizec]

social democrat, like most of europe.

No.

[HoreTore]

No.

As opposed to Stalinists; yes.

[LittleGrizzly]

Hah. What you are actually saying is that Bush can only take bad credit, never good. You look over him when there is success and target him distinctly when their is failure. Of course you are going to find more failures than successes!

Im happy to give credit where credit is due, but is Bush really due credit for rallying the american people for war ?

9/11 did any rallying needed for Afghanastan, and false information did any rallying needed for Iraq, anyone with the ability to speak basic english could have said wmd al-qaeda and iraq in the same sentence.


Without Rumsfeld, the invasion would have taken tons more troops and much more time. Bush picked Rumsfeld. He should be given credit for doing so.

your going to have to clarify for me here do you mean the Afghanastan invasion or the iraq one ?

In the case of Iraq the result was never in doubt and a pretty quick victory was always on the cards without some huge mistakes, but did rumsfield really make a difference to any degree than another person in that position would have ?

Im happy to give credit for successes but with each point you have to judge how much Bush was an influence in this positive, i see conservatives here eager to remind people that Clinton just happened to be leader during an economic upturn, you have to use the same critical anylasis to judge bush on his successes.

[ICantSpellDawg]

[B]

Im happy to give credit for successes but with each point you have to judge how much Bush was an influence in this positive, i see conservatives here eager to remind people that Clinton just happened to be leader during an economic upturn, you have to use the same critical anylasis to judge bush on his successes.

I don't honestly believe politicians have as much to do with the economy as most people like to believe. They give incentives for things, they can make the climate more or less hospitable - other than that... what? Iraq? Do you believe that a war over the course of a few years has crippled us?

Do you think that Bush tanked our economy? Do you think that Clinton skyrocketed it?

I'm a believer that the people do that in concurrence with their ingenuity or lack thereof. You must also take into consideration the people and ingenuity of our competitors.

The rest of your points you are free to make, but when you blame him for failings when others may have had more to do with them, you should also give him credit when things go right (due to the same other people's decisions).

[HoreTore]

I don't honestly believe politicians have as much to do with the economy as most people like to believe. They give incentives for things, they can make the climate more or less hospitable - other than that... what? Iraq? Do you believe that a war over the course of a few years has crippled us?

Uhm, no the president and government has almost absolute power over the economy. He could, for example, have put a stop to the reckless gambling with loans that led to the disaster, yet he did not. He is reacting now, along with the central bank. That's at least a year too late.

[LittleGrizzly]

I don't honestly believe politicians have as much to do with the economy as most people like to believe. They give incentives for things, they can make the climate more or less hospitable - other than that... what?

I would agree with that point, i think the changes they make can have sizeable effects but so much of it is out of thier control, and what they do effect on policy they have experts help them achieve, i think with a majority of politics politicians have the idea and then have experts help them achieve something out of this.

Do you think that Bush tanked our economy? Do you think that Clinton skyrocketed it?

I don't pertend to now all the factors involved but i think Bush through his actions has had some negative effect on the american economy, im not really sure on clinton, i think the economy did have alot of factors outside of clinton control which were positive anyway and i don't now enough about economic decisions he made to judge his impact.

The rest of your points you are free to make, but when you blame him for failings when others may have had more to do with them, you should also give him credit when things go right (due to the same other people's decisions).

I think im being fair in my criticism of bush, when thinking of the economy under his leadership i do take into account things outside of his control, the fact 9/11 happened, the increased oil prices because of 9/11 and events around it, but then the Iraq war i do put down to bush, so increased terrorism and oil prices from that do go down as black marks against him.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I don't honestly believe politicians have as much to do with the economy as most people like to believe. They give incentives for things, they can make the climate more or less hospitable - other than that... what?

I would agree with that point, i think the changes they make can have sizeable effects but so much of it is out of thier control, and what they do effect on policy they have experts help them achieve, i think with a majority of politics politicians have the idea and then have experts help them achieve something out of this.

Do you think that Bush tanked our economy? Do you think that Clinton skyrocketed it?

I don't pertend to now all the factors involved but i think Bush through his actions has had some negative effect on the american economy, im not really sure on clinton, i think the economy did have alot of factors outside of clinton control which were positive anyway and i don't now enough about economic decisions he made to judge his impact.

OK - fair. I don't expect us to agree on much, and this is about as close to an agreement as I think we shall find.

The rest of your points you are free to make, but when you blame him for failings when others may have had more to do with them, you should also give him credit when things go right (due to the same other people's decisions).

I think im being fair in my criticism of bush, when thinking of the economy under his leadership i do take into account things outside of his control, the fact 9/11 happened, the increased oil prices because of 9/11 and events around it, but then the Iraq war i do put down to bush, so increased terrorism and oil prices from that do go down as black marks against him.

Okay - but look at other things. like this

All I want is for people not to label him as an outright failure just yet. I understand it that people arn't thrilled with him - I'm not thrilled with him. I just think that it is pre-mature to be calling him the worst President ever or to say that there is some sort of answer key and he scored lower than 50 on the test - one that hasn't even been handed in yet.

[Redleg]

Uhm, no the president and government has almost absolute power over the economy. He could, for example, have put a stop to the reckless gambling with loans that led to the disaster, yet he did not. He is reacting now, along with the central bank. That's at least a year too late.

You missed one part in the equation - the President could ask congress to make a law to stop reckless gambling with loans - then congress would of had to act.

So when partioning blame for the failure of the economy in the United States one has to start lining everyone up and placing the blame on whom are at fault. Reckless loans is not a matter of regulation but of shoddy business practices of loan institutions.

If one believes the government can fix everything - then one blames the government. When on believes that individuals in a free society have to take responsiblity for their actions - one must first look at the individual before one blames the government.

So the failure of the loans is the primary responsiblity of the loan institution, followed by the individuals who took the loans and that leaves the government to clean up the mess that irresponsible people and institutions created.

Now if the question is should the government watchdog agency that monitors the economic well being of the nation should of paid better attention to the loan practices of these institutions? That government regulations should have been acted on by Congress to better provide oversight of loan institutions and their business practices?

To blame the President is easy when one doesn't understand the American Political system. Hell most americans dont even understand our political system, so its easier to blame one man that might not of even voted for - then look at the two individuals that they have the direct voting ability to from their state whom they cast a ballot on every 2 or 6 years that is a direct reflection on thier votes.

There are several things one can squarely be placed on the President. Foreign Policy and the Government Budget request. Everything else has to go through both the President and Congress. And even the budget has to go through congress before it is approved.

Now if you want to blame President Bush for something - stick with foreign policy and the failure to use his veto power to reject the pork spending of the United States Congress.

[LittleGrizzly]

Okay - but look at other things. like this

I knew i liked a few of Bush's decisions but i couldn't think of one of the top of my head, I think the big increase in aid to africa was a good decision and a brave one considering the mounting expenses at the time.

All I want is for people not to label him as an outright failure just yet. I understand it that people arn't thrilled with him - I'm not thrilled with him. I just think that it is pre-mature to be calling him the worst President ever or to say that there is some sort of answer key and he scored lower than 50 on the test - one that hasn't even been handed in yet.

I wouldn't call him the worst president ever, i don't now enough about previous presidents, only some major events they were players in ww2 and onwards.

Obviously you can't judge him historically within regards to previous presidents the way you could Carter or Nixon but you can judge his presidency as a stand alone and personally i would say its a bad one.

Considering what i think of the guys views he was going to struggle to impress me but he pleasently suprised me with a few policys such as the big increase in aid to africa.

[Lemur]

For what it's worth, Bush has finally defeated Truman. Only slightly related to his eventual standing in history, but worth noting.

At 39 months in the doghouse, George W. Bush has surpassed Harry Truman's record as the postwar president to linger longest without majority public approval.

Bush hasn't received majority approval for his work in office in ABC News/Washington Post polls since Jan. 16, 2005 — three years and three months ago. The previous record was Truman's during his last 38 months in office. [...]

The balance, as often is the case in U.S. politics, is tipped by the political center. Just 27 percent of independents and 23 percent of moderates approve of his job performance, the latter a career low for the president.

[drone]

I saw that, and lol'ed about the date. Four days before his inauguration. Talk about buyer's remorse.

[Devastatin Dave]

I would say Carter has got to be the worst and is continueing his failure in recent weeks hanging out with a multitude of terrorist. He should stick with building houses for worthless leaches.