Is Bush the worst president ever?

[Member2019]

all i can say is that many of the americans here doesn´t know nothing about international politics...they talk about international Law like if it was the same than USA law... Israel has right to defend itself??? ..and how about syria and lebannon invaded by Israel several times??????

A quick trip down history shows that those two states, among others, have crossed Israeli borders far more -- from day 1 through the last few years. Yes, I agree the state of Israel shouldn't have been founded where it exists today. But taking that aspect out of the argument, it's laughable to label Israel an "aggreesor" given it has been attacked, repeatedly, with all the nations around it -- sans Egypt -- with a foreign policy calling for its destruction.

About the only time Israel was directly guilty of unprovoked agression was when it basically allied with the UK and France in 1956 to address the Egyptian nationalization of the Suez. The US quickly put an end to that by threating to destroy the UK's economy (this was before the US was giving any assistance to Israel, which wasn't until a change in US policy during and after the 1973 war).

how about palestinians recluded in ghettos and with no citizen rights even when they live in Israel?????

Point of view. You can demonize each side in the conflict all you want, it doesn't solve the problem of the fact that people need to live together. It's that type of rhetoric that results in the hatred continuing.

International politics are much more complex than american politics...and the rest of the world doesnt think our country is the only one who can solve the world problems without cooperation of nobody... UNILATERALISM is not the way..but many american politics(and citizens) ignore this

No offense, but 42 nations joined the US-led coalition in the 2003 war. But even back in 1991, they called it "American Unilateralism" as well. People laugh at me when I tell them it was Margret Thatcher who convinced H. Bush to build the coalition, as the US had no interest in kicking Iraq out of Kuwait (and, arguably, didn't prevent the aggression by publicly stating we had no defense agreement with Kuwait before the invation).

So, in the end, I guess "American Unilateralism" is defined by ... the French? Talk about the blind following the blind!

PS-you know the debt USA has with UNO? ... USA administration doesn´t believes in UNO so they don´t pay to mantain it...

Argumentative. Look up the funding the US provides to the UN and why some organizations are not directly funded by the US for reasons not left to the US.

 

[georges]

1) all i can say is that many of the americans here doesn´t know nothing about international politics...they talk about international Law like if it was the same than USA law...

2) Israel has right to defend itself??? ..and how about syria and lebannon invaded by Israel several times?????? how about palestinians recluded in ghettos and with no citizen rights even when they live in Israel?????

3) International politics are much more complex than american politics...and the rest of the world doesnt think our country is the only one who can solve the world problems without cooperation of nobody... UNILATERALISM is not the way..but many american politics(and citizens) ignore this

Kisses:

EVA

PS-you know the debt USA has with UNO? ... USA administration doesn´t believes in UNO so they don´t pay to mantain it...

1) No offense but I think you should stop generalizing every American. You think you are that knowledgeable about politics wether they are american or internional. I don't think so.

2) Who was agressed in 1956, 1967 and 1973? Israel. Who had its athletes killed in Munich in 1972? Israel. Who was part of the attackers against Israel in 1967 and 1973? Syria, Egypt and Lebannon. There is nothing wrong with exterminating all members from a terrorist group. Palestinians always had hatred for Israel, yet they elected a terrorist government. Many of the palestinians will not to hesitate blow themselves for money so I don't see a single valuable reason to give them an Israeli citizenship.

3) Unilateralism? You gotta be kidding. Many foreign forces joined USA Armed Forces in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq. The US has more support than any other country.

 

[fedexguy316]

iam sorry but he should get out. thank god this is his last run:glugglug:

 

[tartanterrier]

I do feel sorry for all those that lost their lives,and their families through his mistakes so....Yes

He's the worst one in living memory as far as I'm concerned.Let's hope the next one does have a brain and the same applies to Blair :ban:

:wave2:

 

[HeartBroker]

Not even close. Agreed, he's a bit of a wang, but worst ever ??
Ever...?

No

 

[Member2019]

We aren't the socialists happy with W? They should be!

The entire western world is getting more liberal, more peaceful, less militaristic, more environmentally conscious, and leaning towards pulling together to solve problems.

Regardless of its President, since post-WWII, the United States has always been a thorn in the side of liberal/socialism, appeasement/pacifism, selective environmental policy/ignorance and giving into those who would cause chaos. I don't know how W. is any different.

E.g., despite how Clinton is classified today against W., he had a very conservative agenda and was capitalisticly-focused, gave massive R&D to defense and spent far less on renewable energy R&D, and did not move any environmental policies forward at all under his administration (he signed Kyoto, but every single Democrat, his own party, in the Senate voted against it -- because he didn't sell them on it at all). About the only thing he did is appease a few dictators whereas W. has been confrontational.

BTW, just because someone has an agenda that you disagree with, it doesn't necessarily make him the "worst." I don't like much of W.'s agenda and his administration on many levels. In fact, W.'s been one of the biggest liberal-spenders/socialists, far more than Clinton. He has massively expanded social programs in this country.

Now on the good side, he's also funded far more R&D on hybrid, fuel-cell, solar, wind, and fission research than Clinton. And there are 100x as many people receiving AIDS medicines in Africa than under the Clinton administration, all while W. has increased Hep-C research as well -- which is an outbreak that went unchecked under the Clinton administration (much to the great complaint of the AMA).

All-in-all, I think people focus on the media and other rhetoric than actual substances. Most conservatives, including myself, think W. is one of the most liberal-spenders we've seen and Clinton was much more conservative/capitalist. So why the Democrat voters don't love him on that, I don't know. At the same time, he's not "big oil" in comparison to Clinton -- and is serious about cleaning-up the power grid, which is the only way you can adopt zero emission consumer vehicles.

Now I could go back in time and show Presidents who are far worse. But most people don't know their history and like to only focus on the current President. In reality, a lot of foreign citizens hated Clinton, and only started to like him after they felt W. was far worse. The US has moved more left/socialist under W. than Clinton any day, so you'd figure liberals would be happy. We US conversatives/Libertarians certainly are not.

 

[Member2019]

Clinton bashers are corrupting history.

I'm not a Clinton basher. That's the difference. It's easy to focus on only what Clinton did or didn't do or only what W. did or didn't do. I list what both did and didn't do.

President Bush has kept us safe? Bill Clinton was in office for the first terrorist attacks? These people are corrupting history.

It was neither the first attack, nor the first attack on American soil. But it was the first attack on the WTC. I never said otherwise or tried to trivialize it in any other way.

Bush is the one who disregarded all of the many warnings leading up to 9/11.

So you're saying the "warnings leading up to 9/11" started only after January 20, 2001?

Hey, I've never said that H. Bush didn't share blame with Clinton for 1993. I blame both! At the same time, I hope you're not blind enough to assume only W. is to blame for 9/11. That's the difference between "blind political alignment" and "reality."

He ignored Richard Clark and and instead was busy figuring out how he could attack Iraq.

Huh? The alleged "attack plans" (let alone intelligence) for Iraq came from the Clinton administration and laid dormant until 2002! At no time before 9/11 was the Bush administration even considering changing their stance on Iraq from the Clinton administration prior.

Even the so-called and over-simplified "pre-emption doctrine" came after 9/11, not before! Or are the Democrats trying to re-write the Bush administrations history on that too?

He lied to the American people over and over again to start the war. He has turned Iraq into an incubator for terrorists, made Osama Bin Laden into a hero to some in the Arab world, managed to get nearly 3,000 US soldiers killed and plunged the U.S. into fiscal calamity.

Hey, Bush is to blame for Iraq. If any "Clinton basher" believes otherwise, I agree, they are blind! But you don't have to add ignorance and revisionist history rhetoric like W. was planning the invasion of Iraq that he ignored the threat that became 9/11. That is a joke!

The first terrorist attacks ocurred not under Clinton but under President Ronaldo Reagan. Reagan and George Bush, Sr. are the ones who trained and bankrolled Bin Laden and sold the only WMDs to Sadaam Hussein that he ever had.

As did the French, Germans, Russians after 1991. The US was not the country that gave the most of the technology -- especially not post-1991.

Clinton, on the other hand, captured the sheik who hatched the plot on the World Trade Center, thwarted the Millennium Bomb plots, and left office with the largest budget surplus in the history of the United States. Say what you want about Clinton, but he knew how to run a country.

And Clinton also let Bin Laden go ... twice!

Listen, if you want to focus on Bush's failures and ignore Clinton's, you're part of the same rhetoric/political alignment problem. But if you want to be like me, and realize Clinton made just as many blunders as mistakes on Al Quida as much as Bush, but honestly tried his best in the way he thought was right, then you can stop being a political pundit and join the solution.

Until then, you're just feeding counter-rhetoric and bashing Bush without realizing how hypocritical it is compared to what Clinton did as well.

 

[YMIHERE]

Bush has issued new words to fight the War in Iraq. Although he claims he never really said this, it’s no longer “Stay the course”. The new words are “Timelines with Deadlines” How could Bush be the worst ever president when he can change reality with his choice of more powerful words. Once again faith based reality trumps fact based reality. I understand that Bush is working on more words that will utterly defeat the insurgents. Something like Nixon’s “Peace with honor” or “We had to destroy Iraq to save it” or “I declare victory, we can get out of Iraq.”

For a history of Bush’s use of words to overcome reality see here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqiPdnxL_9c

 

[Member2019]

Bush has issued new words to fight the War in Iraq. Although he claims he never really said this, it’s no longer “Stay the course”. The new words are “Timelines with Deadlines” How could Bush be the worst ever president when he can change reality with his choice of more powerful words. Once again faith based reality trumps fact based reality. I understand that Bush is working on more words that will utterly defeat the insurgents. Something like Nixon’s “Peace with honor” or “We had to destroy Iraq to save it” or “I declare victory, we can get out of Iraq.”

I agree with you. He's posturing just like Nixon did, and Johnson before that. It's still the same "stay the course" statement.

But once you enter a war, can you do otherwise? Even Kerry wasn't offering otherwise. And really what are the Democrats offering?

It's all "cut'n run" v. "stay the course."

There is no "share more of the burden with our allies" or "negotiate with Al Quieda" (despite whether or not they were in Iraq before the war, they are very much there now) option. Really, what other options are there?

 

[YMIHERE]

I..."negotiate with Al Quieda" (despite whether or not they were in Iraq before the war, they are very much there now) option. Really, what other options are there?

How about negotiations with the Iraq insurgents, they are not all Al Quieda. The Al Quieda are mostly foreigners and constitute less than 10% of the violence. The Iraqis will get rid of the foreigner, hopefully. After all Iran is not an ally of Al Quieda. In fact, we are already talking to the insurgents and trying to cut a deal. Then we will run.

 

[Big P13]

...managed to get nearly 3,000 US soldiers killed...

Oh, don't worry, there's plenty of time left in this war. He'll hit 3,000 and more I'm sure!:thefinger

 

[Montrealman]

I'm Canadian, so I have no say whatsoever in this poll, but I thought this was funny & obviously quite true.
Thanks.

 

[lovejoy]

Montrealman,

When America sneezes, Canada catches a cold !

The economy of America and Canada are interdependent !

Canada provides almosts 21-25% of imported oil to US through pipelines and is secure unlike the Nigeria oilfields which was shut down in the last 24 hours.

Also another country in South America will nationalize all the oil field in Nov 30.

The politics in America affects everyone in North America !

 

[Montrealman]

That's not what I meant.
I used to work with Americans & once one moron said Canada should be part of the U.S. so it can stop bitching about the prez.
He had a point. I sure wouldn't want any non canadians telling me how good or bad my prime minister is.
I'm well aware of the politics & business at hand though, thanks. :hatsoff:

 

[monuMENTAL]

If not the worst then definitely the most idiotic. Case in point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmPGYOQwq_k
Who writes G.W.'s speeches? I guess they just give some chimpanzees some crystal meth and a typewriter?

 

[Jiggah33]

Why is it the President who is suddenly the worst. Could it be our society who is at fault for once, our values, our choices. This may just be a forum but someone has to say it. Maybe Americans should look at themselves. You elect the man and his entire ideas, and you know he has many people who make or break decisions under his wing. Maybe the other Presidents would have been just as bad with nuclear weapons and a society so blind to the repetative acts from our history. we as a whole world have not improved, and thus we witness what the americans have brought on to us all, without any chance to stop it.

 

[Iamforever]

i am in no way a george w. bush supporter

now that you know this, i really wish all the bush bashers would stop. he is not evil or the worst president ever.



as for the american economy having a say in north america's economy: unfortunatly, america's economy affects the ENTIRE world. a lot of business from across the globe passes through the states. what i am about to say is going to piss someone off. but, without the usa, the world will not be the same economically.

 

[Johnny Smoke]

Being old enough to remember Richard Nixon/Watergate & Jimmy Carter/Iran Hostage crisis, I would say "No".....just.

And being old enough to remember these events as well, I can say absolutely Bush is the worst president ever.

If there is still even the slightest doubt, it will only be confirmed once he leaves office.

 

[Evil]

Yes.

 

[boobman1]

Without a doubt, he is a walking, talking disaster. The USA must negotiate with middle eastern leaders, verbally in order for peace to happen. Not take over economies and control oil wells. Terrorism occurs due to this issue.