If you do a google search of "worst president in US history" you have literally thousands of hits for GW Bush - So I picked one article- from the Washington Post- I really don't care about the source, just an example of what is being written on this subject. There is one school of thought "let history decide" and another to condemn him based on the policies and behaviors of past failed presidencies.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6120101509.html

I have called him this many times- though, truly, I wonder if history will look upon him more favorably than Coolidge, Polk or Grant.

So I have started this poll, please comment on your reasoning, fair or unfair.

I think this is a very timely debate and poll, mostly because it seems as though Republicans and Democrats in the presidential race appear to be distancing themselves as much as possible from GW, and an endorsement from GW would probably doom a campaign quick!

edited to get a debate question properly in the opening post per request from CR

Question for debate: Is it accurate to describe George W. Bush as the worst president in American history?

I think Bush is the worst president we have today. The sitting and recent presidents always show up too highly on the best and worst polls.

I dislike the policies and partisanship of this administration and think that while Bush has exhibited strong leadership he has done so by taking the country in directions it should not have gone in foreign, fiscal, and tax policies.

The presidents I still would place below Bush would include

Harding because he was an inept corrupt disaster, Buchanan because he watched the nation drift toward war and did nothing effective while it happened, Nixon, because despite his effective policies, he did more to harm our presidency and democratic system than any other American,

too early for me to definitely rate him above many others

but the following are contenders

Quincy Adams, Van Buren, Tyler, Grant, Hoover, Carter

maybe too insignificant to compare

William Henry Harrison, James Garfield, Rutherford Hayes, Benjamin Harrison, Franklin Pierce, Millard Filmore, Zachary Taylor

Normally, I would have picked Coolidge or Polk- but never Adams!- can you explain that one? I consider him one of the greatest statesmen- ever.

Polk- because he sure seems alot like GW - took us to war on a lie and all that, did very immoral and unethical things to grab other peoples land- and in the end- we ended up with that craptacular state of Texas - okay, I keed, I keed

Coolidge again because of GW like qualities- too cozy with big business, completely corrupt from head to toe underlings, all toally hand in glove with big business, and his corruption is probably what led us into the depression - to some degree anyway.

It is sad- because he really had some libertarian ideals- but he let his ideals blind him to the corruption under him.

Interesting take on Coolidge. I read a book over the Summer called "the Forgotten Man" by Amity Shlaes that shed some light on Coolidge (btw the book is a fabulous look at that period). I think he was a good President and it's a stretch to blame him for the Depression that followed after his administration.

It takes about fifty to seventy-five years before a President can be looked at objectively. Anything about Clinton or Bush is just partisan rhetoric.

If I had to pick bad Presidents I'd have to start with Herbert Hoover. He was a wildly popular man before he became President but he was clueless about governing. Many of his bad ideas were the reason the stock market correction became a Depression. FDR gets a lot a flak for some of his economic policies, but most of them were basically just extensions of Hoover policies.

Hoover served as Coolidge's Secretary of Commerce and Calvin was not much of a fan. Coolidge said once, "that man has offered me unsolicited advice for six years, all of it bad." Hoover favored the community over the individual and the nation has been paying for it ever since.

Americans have a remarkable talent for analysis that while unusually swift is often incredibly superficial. It's tempting to call George W. Bush "the worst president in U.S. history" but would a real historian do so? This isn't a VH-1 countdown of "The 25 Worst Presidents in U.S. History" hosted by Carrot Top or some other unemployed comedian.

Bush at his worst never said, "I am not fit for this office and never should have been here." For corruption, faulty judgment, extramarital affairs, and outright incompetence it's hard to knock Warren G. Harding off the top spot. As to be expected for a loser like Harding, in the U.S. News list he comes in second to James Buchanan.

In my lifetime, it's Richard Nixon who will always be The Worst of the Worst. Nixon wasn't a bumbling incompetent like Harding or totally ineffectual like Jimmie Carter or just plain unlucky like William Henry Harrison. Nixon was evil. A gifted politician who held grudges, destroyed his enemies, wiretapped his friends and was paranoid, suspicious and bigoted.

Only someone as vicious and twisted as Dick Nixon could stir the invective of Hunter S. Thompson so: Richard Nixon has never been one of my favorite people anyway. For years I've regarded his existence as a monument to all the rancid genes and broken chromosomes that corrupt the possibilities of the American Dream; he was a foul caricature of himself, a man with no soul, no inner convictions, with the integrity of a hyena and the style of a poison toad. The Nixon I remembered was absolutely humorless; I couldn't imagine him laughing at anything except maybe a paraplegic who wanted to vote Democratic but couldn't quite reach the lever on the voting machine.

When it comes to being the worst, Nixon's the one.

Hmm Nixon is a bit of an easy target since he resigned. I've never really liked him either, but I kind of view him and Johnson the same. I guess Johnson gets a break because of the Civil Rights act (a piece of legislation he voted against every time as a Senator). I'm not sure there's ever been a President as powerful as Johnson and he wiretapped people, used the FBI during elections, got us into Vietnam etc. Both of the Presidents faced similar fates. Johnson couldn't run again because of the war and Nixon to resign for covering up the break in. Nixon was hated by the Left, but he created the EPA, OSHA, and wanted Universal Health Care, so he was hardly a small government conservative.

Nemov, I think in terms of the Depression one should either blame Coolidge or Hoover the most. Hoover was crushed by the GD, Coolidge was in a place to do more about it. Interestingly you point out the Cooolidge was irritated by Hoover and the Commerce Department. I wonder what it was that irritated him?



link

Hoover was the most talented American to ever fail as president. Everything else he ever did was successful. Then he became president.

Coolidge was a truer laissez faire president who favored undermining Progressive regulation and ignoring the rampant speculation of the mid-1920s.

CR IMHO loving John Quincy Adams as a president is like loving Carter. Their success happened mostly out of the White House. In fact, I challenge you to provide Q. Adams' Camp David Accords. In retrospect, taht was an amazing and enduring peace agreement in a region that has no others to compare to.

So as president, give me your Adams as statesman and then I'll concede.

For my take, JGA was an idealistic president who acted like he had a mandate and a political consensus when he had what most Americans viewed as a presidency stolen by a corrupt bargain.

Hoover was a very talented engineer, there's no doubt about that. He didn't know anything about economics though. The stock market crash didn't cause the depression. It's the government's reaction to the crash that made things worse. Hoover raised tariffs (Smoot-Hawley), a move that virtually every economist was against. In fact, that single act might be one of the worst pieces of legislation ever passed by a President. It caused a worldwide trade nightmare. I don't see how Coolidge can be blamed for all the terrible economic moves made after he left office. The nation was due for another recession, there is a business cycle after all...

To get an idea about how bad economic leadership was during the Depression here's an excerpt from Amity Shlaes book about FDR (whom I consider one of our Great Presidents).

The idea that the government saved us from the Depression is a myth. If anything they helped cause it and make it worse. After the War many Republicans defended Hoover's actions and blamed FDR for the prolonged depression. The debate about the Depression has been framed in this light for a while but it's not correct. Hoover after was a very popular figure and it's for this reason Coolidge gets a bum rap. He was popular as well and chose not to run for another term as President stating afterward that "it is difficult for men in high office to avoid the malady of self-delusion. They are always surrounded by worshipers. They are constantly and for the most part sincerely assured of their greatness... ...the presidential office is of such a nature that it is difficult to conceive how one man can successfully serve the country for a term of more than eight years." I find that kind of attitude very refreshing, especially after twenty years of Clinton-Bush.

I know you think it's too early to judge Bush, but here goes...
Nixon is always used as the yardstick for bad presidents (or bad guys who were president), but when you compare what he did with what Bush has (very likely) done, I think it makes Nixon look like a choirboy. Watergate was, basically, dirty campaign tricks. Screwing with a campaign is bad enough, but what happened at the Watergate really didn't affect much in the long run. Nixon was going to win big anyway. You have a slush fund, some wiretaps, some tapes, and some obviously bigoted things caught on those tapes, and an attempt at a coverup. OK, bad stuff. What he did in Cambodia was worse, but that's not what brought him down.

Now, think about what Bush may well have done (there is evidence to support all of this stuff):
*Start the Iraq war on false pretenses. There was enough there for Frontline to do a show on the subject.
*His end run around FISA courts is unconstitutional.
*Detaining people at Guantanamo is unconstitutional.
To my thinking, those things go way past what Nixon did. He should have been impeached long ago.

As little fond as I am of the current administration, I must agree with those who say it is much too early to rank it as good, bad, or indifferent. Let history have the say. How long? Maybe as much as half a century. Some people are still debating the merits of FDR, although there seems to be a consensus among most serious scholars.

Looking over various opinions, I think I have to side with those who would list James Buchanan as the very worst. I say this because his total failure to deal with secession (a truly Herculean task for any President, to be sure) did the most actual harm to the nation. As distressing as the corruption during the Harding administration, or the chicanery during the Nixon administration, may have been, at least they did not actually rip the nation into two parts. (The years before the Civil War had a run of poor Presidential timber, indeed; maybe that's why there was a Civil War.)

The Republican Presidents of the 1920s returned to the pre-Progressive trade policy of high tariffs. The three presidents used pro-business policies and shied away from regulation. The Fordney-McCumber Tariff is part of this.

Coolidge used firm determination to cut government activity which makes him a well-admired figure by modern concervatives, for he is the grandfather of economic conservatives.

The Hawley-Smoot Tariff was an extension of previouus policies that had been used by Coolidge. I am not blaming Coolidge for Hoover's policies, I simply point out that Progressive Era regulation was dismissed by Coolidge and the lack of enforcement and action at the FTC and the Federal Reserve allowed unsafe practices to continue. The stock market crash occured at the same point of Hoover's presidency that 9-11 occured in the Bush presidency. The stage had been set.


Since the depression, with more active regulation of markets and banks and business practices we have not had the dramatic economic fluctuations of the 1866-1942 era.

I have not seen the level of 1929 consensus against Hoover's tariff or any evidence that coolidge would not have supported the tariff. Do you have any links for that?

It is NOT Coolidges ideology I have a problem with at all- in fact, it is that his incompetance and blindness to corruption that I fault him- had he riegned in the rogue elements of capitalism, stopped the criminals- we would probably have never had FDR.

There is ideology- which is neither good nor bad in and of itself- it is the execution of that ideology that makes the history. Like with GW, maybe there are parts of his ideology that are sound- but he is so bloody incompetant and full of himself and blind to everything that doesn't fit into his little picture of the universe- that the ideology- good or bad- is doomed to be a miserable failure.

It is all the combinations of bad presidents past that we seem to have in one person today. It is not the ideology neccesarily- but the crappy leadership that is the problem.

The Depression lasted a decade, with no real end in sight until the war. It's difficult to believe that Government regulation had any positive influence. The United States raised taxes when other industrialized nations were cutting them. Taxes were so high it discouraged investment for over a decade. As far as Coolidge's views on the tariff it's difficult to say. He was rather quiet after he left office; however, his Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon served in the same position under Hoover. It's my understanding that Mellon was against the tariff as well. I found a couple of links that support that claim, however, they're dubious at best.

In May 1930, 1,028 economists signed an open letter that was published in the New York Times urging Hoover to veto the bill. Another snippet from the Forgotten Man.Since the Great Depression we haven't had idiotic Government reaction like was seen under Hoover and FDR. We've had a few stock market crashes since 1929 and some recessions. Sometimes the best way to handle these situations is modest action.



The fact that you misspelled incompetence is kind of funny, you have to admit. Can you cite some examples of Coolidge turning a blind eye towards corruption?

I will look that up a little later- as for the spelling errors? See the last line in my sig.

Most of my spelling errors are from typos, some I just don't care enough to use spell check. Anyway- on that matter- last line in my sig says it all. One person was all upset that I kept mis-spelling "people"- man, someone really did get beat up in school a bunch for being an spelling snob. Or a nerd, or whatever.

On Calvin Coolidge- his inaction against corrupt elements in the banking and stock exchanges, to me, is one of the main components of the Great Depression- but this can be a huge debate in and of itself as well- just check that there are three theories of the reasons for the great derpression, and all of them seem to make some sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression

Also- Coolidge kept many of the Harding admin currupt cabinet poeple

Although many of Harding's cabinet appointees were scandal-tarred, Coolidge announced that he would not demand any of their resignations, believing that since the people had elected Harding, he should carry on Harding's presidency, at least until the next election.[93]


Calvin Coolidge was a personally moral and uncorruptable IMHO- but he turned a blind eye towards corruption in the banking and wall street insider trading and what not- in the idea that goverment should not interfere in business. And mostly- I agree.

But I also understand that bad guys know how to exploit this- and did.

I also usually consider Grant on my list of "worsts" simply because, IIRC, his was actually the most corrupt presidency in US history, as evidenced by actual convictions. And, like Coolidge after him- he was personally honest, but allowed dishonest people to flourish around him.

I think he dumped much of these problems on to Hoover's lap, and Hoover gets the blame for issues started under Coolidge.

Take farm loans- IIRC, you borrowed against the farm "bet the farm", and you just paid interest, and at the end of the loan terms, you paid back the principle in one lump sum.

There were very bad banking practices in the industry at the time- and he refused to regulate them in any real meaningful way.

Too much regulation does stifle business- but not enough causes it's own problems with corruption. Coolidge should have looked for that balance between stopping corruption and corrupt lending practices etc- because of his inaction- we had an over-reaction in FDR- the pendulum swung too far the other direction, if you will.

Ignoring a huge looming problem does not make the problem go away.

So my comment about corruption was "turning a blind eye" meaning- retaining corrupt officials from the Harding administration. And then not acting on the obvious signs that there was trouble a-brewing.

Or maybe- not so obvious- who knows? I do give leaders in those days a bit of a "pass" considering they were charting new territorey all the time. Today- you have plenty of information and help not to make the same mistakes over and over.

I liken Coolidge's decision not to regulate on the same level as Regan's deregulation of the S&L industry- and it's subequent collapse.

Thanks for the link from economists. I think you will have trouble connecting that to a rejection of the policy from within the laissez faire republican orthodoxy though. The policy IMHO was a continuation of the policies of Harding and Coolidge, not a rejection of them.

CR, I would second Nemov in asking for what criminal corruption that Coolidge was turning a blind eye to.

Nemov, this is turning to a FDR assault. Is it your position that FDR was a damaging president for the United States?

If not doing much was the best way to handle the Depression, then why didn't four eyars of relative inaction have a better impact on the nation's economy (1928-1932) than four years of the New Deal? I am not BTW arguing that the New Deal cured the Depression, I do argue though that the New Deal policies have left us a legacy of a more stable economy. Especially when coupled with a rejection of tariff based trade policies that came with the Atlantic Charter and the post-WWII economy.

I wonder what you think has been the government reaction to recessions since 1929? The dramatic rate cuts of the fed and the calls for massive stimulus packages today definitely seem like dramatic responses.

In response to the market crash the fed also made bad moves under Hoover and that actions of the fed helped fuel speculation before the crash and deepen the depression and sense of panic after the crash. In the face of the post 1929 credit crunch, the fed tightened credit policies.

link

I think the "four years of inaction" under Hoover are a myth. History has taught for decades that Hoover didn't do anything; however, many of major mistakes were made under his watch while he "tried to do something." The young Federal Reserve failed to recognize that deflation and not inflation was the problem. After five years of government mismanagement the nation lost faith in the marketplace. This is why I don't blame FDR for all his policies. The perception of "action" was required. Even if FDR told the country to be patient and let the economy right itself (which would have eased the severity of the Depression) he wouldn't have been able to maintain order. Most historians have forgotten the stock market crash in the fall of 1937. Unemployment rose four percent from 13.5% to 17.4% in the last quarter of 37.

Since the Depression the Fed has been better at recognizing the differences between inflation and deflation. I'm not a fan of the current stimulus package. It's not warranted and it blatant vote pandering. The US faces another great economic threat if the looming fiscal crisis isn't solved. Again, it's the government causing the problems, not solving them.

What New Deal policies have led to a more stable economic environment since World War II? I should add the FDR did start reducing the tariffs and that helped ease some of the pain. However, his war with Wall Street crippled investment.

I would agree with the "inaction" comment- but they were still the wrong action- and, like you said "something had to be done"- and there was a very real danger of the US moving away from the capitalist system completely as well. If there were ever a time that communism was more than a boogeyman to excuse bad behavior by the US- this time period would be it. Too many desperate people making desperate decisions- can lead to bad, and desperate, decisions.

This is similar to several other forums opened over the last several years. This one, however, is getting out of hand. On the one hand, posters say we have to wait for history's judgment and on the other we have Nemov grouping FDR with the worst presidents when historian generally rank him as one of 3 or 4 greatest presidents! Perhaps some references to historical opinion will help.

See Link).

(See Wikipedia Article).

(See HERE).

I concur!

Exactly where did I say FDR was a bad President? He's in my top 5 greatest ever. He inherited a dire situation and did everything he could to get us out. He was a great leader, but along the way he made poor economic choices. However, I don't think he had any alternatives given the situation. No president in our history has been perfect.

Now please go back an reread this debate and relax your outrage.

Here I would list the FDIC, Social Security, and the creation of the SEC.

His decisive action on the banking crisis is something I would put forward of government action working and working in an extremely helpful manner. The nations monetary system was at risk, and then it wasn't.

I'm not sure how Social Security or the FDIC has helped stabilize the economy. There's been no risk of a bank run since the depression. The only true test of the FDIC was the S&L crisis that cost taxpayers $150 billion. As I stated earlier FDR had no clue what he was doing with gold prices (setting them against his lucky number). Again, no slight against FDR... he's strength was his temperament, optimism, and leadership. There's no question how great those qualities were in FDR. The merits of SS can be debated and the FDIC has been a success, I just don't think either one has a major role in economic stability.

Big deal.

If you used Google.com and typed in "miserable failure", plus the "I'm Feeling Lucky" button, it would link you to the White House web page.

The BBC even wrote an article about it. How embarrassing.

So first off, the premise that "because Google brings up Bush" in a word search for "worst president" means really nothing.

Except for some interesting discussions on AD, I mean.

I think as a leader, Bush has done an exceptional job. He hasn't been a flag flapping in the wind of public opinion.

He did make some key mistakes, but I don't think history is going to be as harsh on him as time goes on. Some Bush-haters would like to do everything and anything to discredit any and every thing he's done. But that's just as disingenuous as the things they accuse Bush of.

So I'm not going to waste my time defending him as "the not worst President" of all time. And especially because of an internet search engine popularized in the very time the supposed "worst President" has been in office.

Really, according to the internet, the only two Presidents that could have had wide-use of daily blogs forming or bastardizing opinion would be Clinton and GW Bush. Neither of which I think were the worst by any stretch. But they certainly have more press, more info, more opinions and more typed about them than anyone else.

I hope you all understand.

Actually- I was refering to this as it's status as "pop culture"- and asking the question- "Sure, everyone is saying it- but is it so?"

I would say yes- simply because he has combined every bad trait of the worst presidents in history into one person.

I was wondering if we were going to find that one person that actually believes is anything better than merely a nincompoop.

If you notice- there has been very little Bush bashing on this thread- by myself or anyone else.

Has been some serious Coolidge and FDR bashing, maybe some nixon bashing, some Warren G Harding bashing

but I am NOT offering a google search as proof either.

Question for debate: Is it accurate to describe George W. Bush as the worst president in American history?

This is a great, extremely interesting question because it requires us to think in a very vast, almost frightening way: what will happen when George Bush leaves office?


If George Bush is or will turn out to be the worse president, it will be for consequences that have yet to fully hit home: a relatively unsuccessful, diminishing return on our foray into Iraq; a mortgage crisis and an economy nobody stepped into save before it was perhaps too late; a monumental debt of historic portions, taken out at the very moment the dollar fell on par with the loonie and the toonie.

My point on the question is this:

My personal nominee for worse president is Andrew Johnson. Hoover gets a bad rep, in my view: the stock market crisis was part of a global depression that few leaders, in any western nation were prepared for. And many of the reforms he pushed through were the bedrock of the new deal: he created the first federal unemployment assistance program, and increased public works spending, for instance. Andrew Johnson, however, blew one of the most important pivots in American history: he allowed the federal government to become a shell-shocked, reactionary force during the very time when an expanding corporate economy and rising post-war racial tension in the south threatened human rights across the country. But that's a different debate.

If George Bush was or will be seen as the worse president in American history it will be because he turned a surplus nation of peace and prosperity -- a nation at the top of its stride -- into a retreating power. If he earns that unenviable mantle, it will because the Clinton presidency, or maybe September 11, marked the high water point of America's economic well-being, and our dominance in the world.

To be brief, I'll say that, yes America holds remarkably less sway in the world today than we did 8 years ago. And a large part of that does have to do with the Iraq war. National figures in our closest ally, Britain, have come to see the US as a bit of a political leper. On the PR stage, America has torn another seam in its cloak of invincibility, a development which has helped fuel regimes in Venezuela, Sudan, and Putin's Russia. I could go on, but we've already had this debate elsewhere.

The point I just wanted to make here, in defense of that C student whose made something of a D- president, is this: America, with or without George, was bound to lose its untenable global position. There was no way our unilateral, uni-polar sway over this world could have lasted long into the 21st century, simply because the demise of the Soviet Union created two rising superpowers, with which America is being forced to compete: a united Europe, and a resurgent China. It was only a matter of time before America faced stiff political and economic competition with those powers, my point being, Bush sped that process up considerably.

I'm not sure that makes him the worse president, but it qualifies him for the short list. But, like I said, we'll see: I have a feeling that the worse of the Bush presidency is going to conveniently play itself out during the Obama, McCain, or Clinton II presidency. Kind of the way Vietnam, Watergate, OPEC, and a misguided 100-year-old Iran policy played itself out during the Carter Presidency.

Sure it's fair. But is it accurate? History has a way of calming the waters and making people really sit back and objectively evaluate the contributions and merits of world leaders. There was a time when a population of colonial America didn't like Washington, Adams, Franklin, and Jefferson so much. However, time passed and traitors became heroes. I'm not going to be all optimistic about Bush's legacy; I don't think anyone will remember him as a hero by any stretch of the imagination. However, the worst? Come, come. This nation has experienced Andrew Jackson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and we survived the hard-headed Lyndon B. Johnson presidency.

I would have to argue against anyone saying that Bush has been the worst president because there are many, many factors going into it. From a foreign-policy standpoint, perhaps he's made some blunders. But he did not drop an atom bomb, as Truman did. He did not forcefully relocate people from their homes, as Jackson did. His attitude toward civil rights has been rather poor, but Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus and Lincoln is in the pantheon of American heroes.

A big feather and historical justifier for Bush is the fact that September 11th was the last terrorist attack on his watch. The civil rights and liberty debacles may be forgotten with time as they have largely been forgotten during Lincoln's administration.

I can't believe I left Andrew Johnson off of my worst presidents list. He definitely belongs with the worst.

Oh good a question that can actually be answered.

No it is inaccurate. He's not even done yet.

I wonder though- could have the same thing be said about Andrew Johnson? I believe his presidency went a bit like GWs- and many of the same statements were made during his presidency as well- and history has been proved correct- same with Warren G Harding, and Grant- well, the corruption there was found out during his presidency.

It is hard to argue history when it isn't complety written, that is true- but some things are soooo horrid and so bad you can point them out as they happen.

Like another poster has said- it does look like Clinton's presidency does somewhat mark the high point, or at least the plateau, of American ideals and influence around the world, depending on how the next guy or gal does- we could see a new golden age I suppose, but the damage GW has done to this country, just on the economic side, is pretty severe.

WE are now seen as an imperialist tool of oppression world wide- among former moderates even, whereas we were viewed pretty well, especially so shortly after 9/11. GW can be directly atributed to our loss of credibility world wide.

Andrew Johnson was a president when his only influece and ability to screw up was limited to this country only, as we were just a weak former colony at the time.

GW screwed us and up on a global scale, to a degree no president has matched.

Question for debate: Is it accurate to describe George W. Bush as the worst president in American history?


You gave an excellent analysis of Bush’s effect on this country while kind of giving him a pass on that effect. Yes, I too believe that the US couldn’t possibly hold the position of global superpower forever, but I also believe that if we’d had a different leader these last 8 years that our standing in the world would not be that of pariah. I believe a more intelligent, less belligerent president would have made smarter decisions, and the US would still be among the strongest and most respected nations in the world.

The reasons I believe Bush is the worst president ever is the number of people who have paid in one way or another for his blunders. From the very beginning, with a hinky election, he has proven himself the worst. From the soldiers and Iraqi citizens who have lost their lives due to his horrible decision to invade Iraq to the antagonizing of Iranian and Central American leaders, to his pandering to oil and big corporate interests, to the overt cronyism, to the ignoring of global environmental issues, to the poor handling of disasters at home, to the insidious insinuation of religion into politics, to the enormous increase in the nation’s debt, to the poor economic situation now, to the citizens of this nation he has polarized, he has proven unfit for the task of president. The events after September 11, 2001 should not be held up as one of his “achievements” by any means; his inattention and poor decisions contributed to the growth and popularity of terrorism tactics worldwide. With his decisions to detain people without habeas corpus and condone torture, he left this country no better than 3rd world nations.

The damage George W. Bush has done is unprecedented in modern times. Who knows how many years it will take to undo? I pity his successor; the cleanup job will be enormous and daunting, and four years may not be enough to recover from the damage he's done (maybe not even 8).

I suggest history will say just the opposite. In fact, I say History will say of GWB that he was a visionary in regards to US/Middle East Policy. Further, his Bush Doctrine of preemptive war will come to be seen as a very sane response to imminent threats. The short version of this is that GWB will be seen as the leader who almost stopped the Crusades.

I don't agree. I'm just betting how History will remember him and his 8 years.

History is told by the winners and if we continue on as we are, that won't be us. If that is the case, then I doubt he will be seen as a visionary in regards to his policies, nor will his preemptive war been seen as a sane response. His presidency will be marked as the point in history where the our "Roman Empire" really began to crumble.

Lets give the top spot to LBJ who made Bush look like a kid in the “war” category.

This moron sent my generation to war in Vietnam – killed 58,000 – more than 14 times the current war – and then ran out. The greatest wast of American lives in the history of this country.

If we won't be the "winners" then who will be? What does this statement even mean? Are you saying that if the US continues to be the world's dominant superpower than Bush's policies will be seen as "visionary". Somehow I don't think many people will agree with you there.

The Roman empire lasted at least four hundred fifty years and could be considered to have lasted 1500 years if you count the Eastern Byzantine Empire (Rome ceased being the capital of the Roman Empire when the Empire was divided in 286). Not too shabby. The reasons that Rome failed were complex and did not stem from a single leader leading to its downfall.

I couldn't agree more- except for the part of him "running out"- he escalated the war, Nixon actually got us out.

And it was JFK that started it- LBJ was just the guy that escalated it, micromanaged it and screwed up everytime he did anything about it- pretty much the same as GW- - instead of 58000 dead, the survivability that is possible through battlefield medicine makes the amount of permanently life altering injuries vs deaths a new ratio- so don't kid yourself about the amount of casualties from Iraq.

American foriegn policy has been screwed up from the day we decided to become "nation builders' by installing the Shah of Iran in '53 (I think I got that date right? )




The republic died early on though. And it was a brutal, oppresive regime as well. Not something the US should aspire to. IN fact, one of my main points- but I usually point out Athens as decribed by Thucidydes,

They sought to exploit, and take over, many of the city states around them, and it escalated into a war with sparta, which they lost, and pretty much ended the idea of democracy for some time, by opening the way to Phillip of Macedonia and then Alexander the Great.

I don't even think it was fifty years into Athen's attempt to become the "nation building" democracy before it fell.

We don't have a Sparta, yet. Or maybe it is the Muslims, who knows?

A minor quibble, but I'd say it goes back much farther than that. The expansionism of the late 19th and early 20th century would get my vote. DTOM brought up Butler's speech, and it was a heady indictment of foreign policy as an arm of American business. Where did we go wrong? Was it UFCO convincing the US government to have a CIA orchestrated coup in Guatemala, to overthrow a (finally) democratically elected government? Was it farther back? Was it Wounded Knee? Was it protecting business interests in Argentina in 1890? Was it in the Philippines in the first decade of the 20th century, when we managed to dispose of some 600,000 philippinos? Was it when we grabbed Cuba, Guam, and Puerto Rico from Spain? We've been an aggressive nation almost since the blood dried on our Continental Army bayonets. Look at a history of US troop deployments. How few of these were "national defense!" It's a testament to our short memory that anyone is surprised by what happens today.

As for the worst president in history, I'd have to be cynical, I'm afraid. Bush was surely the absolutely worst person to be faced with the complex world of the early 21st century, but would the alternatives really have been much better? Bush merely continues the trend of leaders in our "great" nation. This pseudo-democracy where our illusion of choice is between two guys representing the same interests - that are pointedly not ours, that is, yours and mine. That's not to say we don't benefit indirectly. Our high standard of living, our wealthy nation. The fools among us continue to attribute this to lofty ideals, when the sadder reality is protectionism and military aggression. The United States as a nation has made its strength and wealth not by spreading democracy but by wielding a bludgeon it has always been ready to use. In the White House, the names and parties change, but the game remains the same.

Go back and check your history. The Roman republic lasted for about 450 years and was transformed into an empire when the far flung Republic was too hard to govern by two guys who were also in charge of fighting wars abroad (in a nutshell).

The United States is five times as big as the Roman Empire was in area and many of the same governance problems are encountered here as they were back then.

The "glory" of Athens is overblown by a great many people (or poeple). Only men could vote. In fact, only men with military training. Voting could be suspended for committing crimes (avoiding taxes, for instance). About one in three people in Athens were citizens and about 1 in 3 of THEM could vote. So about 10% of the population could vote.

The Greek democracy was fairly short lived: about 150 years. The democracy ended when Athens was conquered by Philip II of Macedon, not because it was an expansionist power.

Actually the decision to not escalate was made by Kennedy and quickly reversed right after LBJ came into power with the assassination
He then wasted over 58,000 American lives and then refused to run again – leaving Nixon to clean up the mess this moron had made.


.


Not even close. We never took North Vietnam, or their production, or even controlled the South. And dead is DEAD. Yes we have wounded in Iraq but remember the 58,000 dead and then 304,000 thousand wounded. Longest war in US history – 11 years. So please do you homework before spewing the usual hate Bush crap.


http://www.landscaper.net/timelin.htm#VIET...AR%20STATISTICS

“The Vietnam War was the longest military conflict in U.S. history. The hostilities in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia claimed the lives of more than 58,000 Americans. Another 304,000 were wounded”

http://www.vietnamwar.com/

Wounded in Iraq = 28,773 to date or 9.5% of Vietnam. So even if it goes to 45,000 (unlikely) it will be less than 15% of Vietnam.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops..._casualties.htm

That seems fine on the surface, because it's just a number to us here. The fact of the matter is, parallels are being drawn between Vietnam and Iraq because hindsight has told us we were engaged in a losing battle and knew about it.

Most of the American public feel as if Iraq is un-winnable. By that argument, one dead soldier is one too many. America is secure. So they're not dying for our freedom like our soldiers during the American Revolution or World War Two. America may have a vested economic interest, but fight it out with the banks and not our blood.

So it's understandable why some people feel a 9.5% of Vietnam-era fatalities in Iraq is unacceptable, even immoral.

I do agree that the analogy between Vietnam and Iraq is not that good- also, a crucial difference- GW had an "exit strategy" for staying out of Vietnam.

Really- the good comparison is the Soviet Union and Afghanistan, and US and Iraq- very many simularities- especially since the Soviet Union took the country in a couple days, then got in between the civil war, and eventually, after about 10 years, left, with the country still being in a civil war, over 1 million Afghanistanis dead, and the Soviet Union having nothing to show for thier troubles.

The US has no Soviet Union to funnel massive amounts of firepower to the region covertly, as we did in Afghanistan- on that area, at least we are lucky.

BTW- there are some very interesting simularities as well- for instance- most of the "aligned" world condemned the Soviet Union, with the non-aligned countries pretty evenly split, depending on who they were getting thier "aid" from

But the casualty figures are pretty well resembling ours- easy initial, low casualty entry into the country, with mounting casualties and cost as time marches on.

At worst, we have only had Iran to thank for the arming of the insurgents- if we had an influx of weapons like the Soviets did to us, we would have much larger casualties. Heaven help our troops if that ever changes.

In fact, our intervention may have "emboldened" the terrorists- the very thing Ted and those types say so often

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan

The Islamists who fought also believed that they were responsible for the fall of the Soviet Union. Osama bin Laden, for example, was asserting the credit for "the collapse of the Soviet Union ... goes to God and the mujahidin in Afghanistan ... the US had no mentionable role," but "collapse made the US more haughty and arrogant."

Also- here is the Soviet Unon losses as the war drug on, in a total:

Between December 25, 1979 and February 15, 1989 a total of 620,000 soldiers served with the forces in Afghanistan (though there were only 80,000-104,000 force at one time ), 525,000 in the Army, 90,000 with border troops and other KGB sub-units, 5,000 in independent formations of MVD Internal Troops and police. A further 21,000 personnel were with the Soviet troop contingent over the same period doing various white collar or manual jobs.

The total irrecoverable personnel losses of the Soviet Armed Forces, frontier and internal security troops came to 14,453. Soviet Army formations, units and HQ elements lost 13,833, KGB sub units lost 572, MVD formations lost 28 and other ministries and departments lost 20 men. During this period 417 servicemen were missing in action or taken prisoner; 119 of these were later freed, of whom 97 returned to the USSR and 22 went to other countries.

There were 469,685 sick and wounded, of whom 53,753 or 11.44 percent, were wounded, injured or sustained concussion and 415,932 (88.56 percent) fell sick. A high proportion of casualties were those who fell ill. This was because of local climatic and sanitary conditions, which were such that acute infections spread rapidly among the troops. There were 115,308 cases of infectious hepatitis, 31,080 of typhoid fever and 140,665 of other diseases. Of the 11,654 who were discharged from the army after being wounded, maimed or contracting serious diseases, 92 percent, or 10,751 men were left disabled.[49]


Remains of Soviet trucks in Kandahar, Afghanistan, 2002.Material losses were as follows:

118 aircraft
333 helicopters
147 tanks
1,314 IFV/APCs
433 artillery guns and mortars
1,138 radio sets and command vehicles
510 engineering vehicles
11,369 trucks and petrol tankers

Okay- that was for 11 years of war, very similar to what we are fighting in Iraq

I believe we are on pace to totally obliterate the Afghani cost to the war with the Soviet Union, it looks like we are doing far more damage to Iraq than the Soviet Union has done to Afghanistan:

Over 1 million Afghans were killed.[50] 5 million Afghans fled to Pakistan and Iran, 1/3 of the prewar population of the country. Another 2 million Afghans were displaced within the country. In the 1980s, one out of two refugees in the world was an Afghan.[51]

Along with fatalities were 1.2 million Afghans disabled - both Mujahideen and noncombatants -and 3 million maimed or wounded - primarily noncombatants. [52]

We have been in Iraq a little less than half the time the Soviets were in Afghanistan- and we don't even have the excuse of a super power arming our enemies.

So, it was a bad idea to get inbetween a very uneasily held together society, always ready to go to war with one another- if not for some centralized brutal strongman.

In fact, here is a nice quote from Wiki link presented above:

In 1992, the United States Secretary of Defense during the war, Dick Cheney, made the same point:

"I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home.

And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties, and while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war.

And the question in my mind is, how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is, not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the President made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."[22]



So I give GW extra low marks for not listening to his daddy.

For instance- here is some sound wisdom by his dispensed by his Papa:

"I can tell you this: If I'm ever in a position to call the shots, I'm not going to rush to send somebody else's kids into a war."

( in fact, he took great pains to keep his kid out of war, as it turns out )

"I'm conservative, but I'm not a nut about it."

"I'm going to be so much better a president for having been at the CIA that you're not going to believe it."

"I think I'd be a better president because I was in combat."

To assign "absolutr" worseness to a president is difficult, especially those who are still in office or who left in the past quarter century or so.

Robert Dallek wrote what to date is the dedinitive biography of Kennedy, An Unfinished Life. As people live longer the time between departure from office and definitive assessment may move from 25 to 35 or 40 years.

Still I would submit that Bush will go down as one of the worst, if not the worst.

You can find my reasoning in a post on a similar, but closed thread.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...st&p=237490

Ah, linking beats retyping and for the moment my frustration is spent.

BoF, I agree with you that George W. Bush has been an abominable President, but he has turned more people onto democracy than any President in our nation's history. He may be the catalyst for a new beginning in the American political system. People now realize, after dealing with his stubborness, just how powerless they really are against this monstrosity we call our government. It is the farthest thing from a representative government and Bush helped many realize that. The number of people showing up to vote, just in the nominating process, has been unprecedented.

Well it may actually be winnable and it sure has more value that Vietnam. But the magnitude of the losses and stupidity of the way LBJ ran the war puts him in my #1 spot for the worst President. Bush doesn’t even come close.

Hmmm... I'm curious, just how many American casualties occured under LBJ out of the 58,226 during the entire conflict? I'll look that up when I get a chance.

Regardless, if that is the criteria by which Presidents should be judged, I'm sure we could turn the world of History on it's head.

Meanwhile we have issues with poverty, manufacturing, unemployment, national debt, health care, education, and the economy at large by which to measure the Bush 43 Presidency.

I'll be shocked if he doesn't remain in history's bottom 5 for the next century.

I posted it – 304,000

How?

Carter had far more In fact through most of the Bush Presidency we have had a great economy. Of course overspending – including war spending has not helped the debt.

If economy was the issue Carter would be my pick in the last 50 years

The thing is, there are no goals for victory. Can't have a win without knowing what a win is.

I think sheer lack of focus on an endgame is damning enough for Dubya.

Here's your list:

1. George W. Bush's inarticulate use of the English language. He's a bad image for our nation.
2. Dick Cheney,
3. Donald Rumsfeld,
4. Condi Rice,
5 Vetoing of stem cell research and child health care bills,
6. An asinine war in Iraq,
7. Botched alliances abroad,
8. Domestic evesdropping,
9. Signing statements and general disregard for the constitution,
10. Invoking "god" too often and kissing the religious right's rear quarters,
12. My way or the highway attitude,
13. Record deficits,
14. Record gas prices,
15. The ever increasing likelyhood of a recession,
18. Alberto Gonzales,
19. Tax cuts that gave too much to people who didn't need them and too little to people who did,
20. Agencies that don't work. I laugh at John McCain's line that FEMA can't find its trailers, but FedEx knows where every package is.
21. No Child Left Behind.
22. John Ashcroft - Lady Liberty will never be the same.

It's a list of personal disagreements. It isn't disagreements that make a bad President. How, exactly do the two words "Condi Rice" equate in any way to "Worst President"?

Invoking "God" too much? Sheesh. Read some of Lincoln's speeches.