Worst President Ever?

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

he supported Philippine dictator Fernando Marcos

 

You have to blame Reagan for this too. Reagan was a very close ally of Marcos. Both men practiced realpolitik in the Philippines

 

and he GAVE AWAY the Panama Canal

 

And ended a colonial-style occupation of a tiny country. This was the right thing to do.

 

he created the economic phenomenom known as "Stagflation"

 

Jimmy Carter created stagflation? You mean no other place ever had ever experienced slow growth and inflation before?

[SamoaRowe 0]

Nothing Douchebag cited about Carter, even if it may be true, is half as bad as what Bush has done to this nation. He has fucked us all over for years to come.

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

he supported Philippine dictator Fernando Marcos

 

You have to blame Reagan for this too. Reagan was a very close ally of Marcos. Both men practiced realpolitik in the Philippines

 

and he GAVE AWAY the Panama Canal

 

And ended a colonial-style occupation of a tiny country. This was the right thing to do.

 

 

We never should have given away the Canal. Whether it was the "right" thing to do is irrelevant. The strategic importance of the Panama Canal cannot be underestimated for the United States and now the Panamian government has given control of the shipping ports of the Pacific and Atlantic ends to a Hong Kong firm with connections to the Chinese government. This is a huge problem if there is ever a "war" over Taiwan because the Chinese could in effect shut down the canal and wreck our trade.

 

I think Carter was an idealist in foreign policy and wanted there to be human rights and "do the right thing" but often times you simply cannot do that when you forsake national interests which is what happened with the Canal.

 

I also blame Carter for the allowing the fall of the shah in Iran which I consider a big foreign policy blunder. I'm not saying the shah was all great but allowing an Islamic Republic to form in Iran only led to us supporting Saddam in the brutal Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s and we lost a crucial ally in the region.

[Gary Floyd 0]

I also blame Carter for the allowing the fall of the shah in Iran which I consider a big foreign policy blunder.

SHAH!

[King Kamala 0]

Jimmy Carter? He's history's greatest monster!

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

How come nobody ever craps on Eisenhower for fomenting the coup in Iran back in the 50s? That seems to have been a pretty huge mistake.

[k thx 0]

We'll only be able to assess Bush's failures in hindsight. Iraq may have been the right thing to do, it may have been the wrong thing to do, we wont know for decades.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Or we might know in like two years when the government collapses and Iraq becomes a Muslim theocracy allied with Iran.

[k thx 0]

Again, we wont know if that would be the right thing for years either. It may bring added stability to the region by making essentialy a superstate, it may bring about the end of the world. Who knows?

[Dobbs 3K 0]

So foreign policy should be based on what may be seen as good, years from now, rather than the current reality of the situation?

[k thx 0]

It may be best to consider the future before invading a country, yes.

 

More to the point, if the invasion is seen as a major turning point in stopping global catastrophe, whatever the feelings towards him now, he will go down as a good president. If, on the other hand, the war is seen as the catalyst for the breakdown of the Middle East leading to a World War then he will go down as bad. Same with his domestic policies.

 

Whether you agree or not, he can only be fully judged once his actions have played out.

[Jericho2000Mark 0]

Whoever says there is even a possibility that Bush may go down as a "good president" should never be taken seriously when it comes to any topic, ever.

[2GOLD 0]

 

He's right though. I know I won't call him good ever but if the shit works, then him and his crazed staff of misfits will go down in a positive light. Doesn't mean those who lived through it will ever agree with the opinions of future historians but once we are dead and gone, if this actually ends up being a turning point towards a massive future peace then future generations after us will see him as great.

 

It's hard not to vomit when thinking about but he someday may go down as a great man with an amazing legacy and we'll just be the group of nearsighted people who didn't believe in him.

 

 

[k thx 0]

I'd also like to mention that I'm not a fan of Bush, but he'll be judged on his legacy, not his actions.

 

Not looking good so far though.

[snuffbox 0]

Yeah, maybe Iraq will magically turn around and, instead of completely demolishing America's world image and fostering a huge incerease in global terrorism as it already has, will result in gumdrops & hugs.

 

And, maybe he'll get a mulligan on Katrina. And tornadoes. And collapsing infrastructure. And SCHIP. And collosal government spending. And granting amnesty to bin Laden. And neutering the Afghanistan effort. And the Patriot Act. And fostering massive corruption (nobody cares about that in Grant or Harding's terms right?).

[Nightwing 0]

Yeah, maybe Iraq will magically turn around and, instead of completely demolishing America's world image and fostering a huge incerease in global terrorism as it already has, will result in gumdrops & hugs.

 

And, maybe he'll get a mulligan on Katrina. And tornadoes. And collapsing infrastructure. And SCHIP. And collosal government spending. And granting amnesty to bin Laden. And neutering the Afghanistan effort. And the Patriot Act. And fostering massive corruption (nobody cares about that in Grant or Harding's terms right?).

 

Yeah. Though Katrina has really been building for years with the levees, all the people in charge have to take part of the blame there. On Global Terrorism: I can't fault him completely as terrorism just hitting an upswing in my opinion. After the success of 9/11, it's hard to see why people WOULDN'T try it.

 

But governmental spending, ineffectual domestic policy, and massive corruption will definitely stop him from being remembered well. Anyone want to bet how much gas falls after he's gone?

[k thx 0]

Regardless of domestic policy, I think it's how Iraq & the war on terror that will determine how he's remembered.

 

Kind of like 9/11 determined how Rudy Guliani's term as mayor of New York is remembered, but obviously *100.

[snuffbox 0]

Rudy's able to fool the typically naive and gullible about his term as mayor but the actualy people of NYC don't seem to recall him as pleasently. His handling of 9/11 before/during/after isn't regarded too highly by the population there, either. It's among the more pathetic conundrums of his all-911, all the time, campaign.

 

Too bad the actual victims can't make millions by talking about that day.

[EricMM 0]

Can you imagine what the Republican response would be if a Democrat like Gore had handled Bin Ladin the way Bush has?

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Can you imagine what people like Hannity and Limbaugh would be spouting if the current Iraq war was happening under Bill Clinton? It's total two-faced bullshit all around.

[Narcoleptic Jumper 0]

Yeah. Though Katrina has really been building for years with the levees, all the people in charge have to take part of the blame there. On Global Terrorism: I can't fault him completely as terrorism just hitting an upswing in my opinion. After the success of 9/11, it's hard to see why people WOULDN'T try it.

 

lol. so you mean that absurd amount of sectarian violence in Iraq due to our imperialist invasion has nothing to do with an increase in terrorism? how many times have we been attacked since 9/11? it's not like the government allowed that to happen anyway... right?

[Nightwing 0]

Yeah. Though Katrina has really been building for years with the levees, all the people in charge have to take part of the blame there. On Global Terrorism: I can't fault him completely as terrorism just hitting an upswing in my opinion. After the success of 9/11, it's hard to see why people WOULDN'T try it.

 

lol. so you mean that absurd amount of sectarian violence in Iraq due to our imperialist invasion has nothing to do with an increase in terrorism? how many times have we been attacked since 9/11? it's not like the government allowed that to happen anyway... right?

 

lol, you missed where I said "I can't fault him completely" for the rise in global terrorism. I never said he was innocent. Also, I tend to count Iraqi violence within the issue of the Iraq War rather than global terrorism in general.

[DARRYLXWF 0]

Worst President ever? I don't know, which is the one that can claim chief responsibility for turning a reasonably secular, democratic country into a hotbed of religious dicks?

 

 

 

[Jingus 0]

I don't know if you can say Bush "turned us into" the aforementioned holy phalli. But the administration over the past several years has certainly been skilled at enflaming and rousing the rabble who might be predisposed to such beliefs in the first place. Also probably doesn't help that the Red States have overall higher birth rates than their liberal counterparts, many of which are experiencing negative population growth.

 

lol.

Did you? Laugh out loud, that is? Really? For some reason I doubt your sincerity.

 

so you mean that absurd amount of sectarian violence in Iraq due to our imperialist invasion has nothing to do with an increase in terrorism?

1. Call it what it is, a guerilla civil war. I'm tired of the pansy "sectarian" label.

 

2. Of course America's involvement has something to do with it. Namely, the fact that we changed the previous situation. That situation being the rule of Saddam and his party, who tended to execute anyone who looked at them funny. And then execute their family, their friends, their entire hometown, and everyone who sat near them in first grade. Except for the women, who got tossed into the rape rooms. That sort of tyrannical rule has the side effect of thoroughly discouraging people from committing "sectarian violence".

 

3. The United States isn't an empire. If we were doing true imperialism in the old-school sense, the Iraqis wouldn't have their own government, they'd be paying us taxes (except for the ones we made our literal slaves), we'd defile their women and force all their children to speak our language, and we'd arrogantly laugh about how we fully intend to never leave. That's what empires do. So come up with a different word for "imperialism" for the current ham-handed occupation and policing.

 

how many times have we been attacked since 9/11?

Do you mean "how many terrorist have successfully attacked a target on American soil since 9/11"? To my knowledge, zero. Or do you mean "how many terrorists have attempted to attack American targets all over the globe"? Too many for me to begin to count. Either way, what's that question got to do with anything?

 

it's not like the government allowed that to happen anyway... right?

Oh, are you seriously gonna bring the "Bush caused 911!" conspiracy theories? Please do, I beg you. No, scratch that, I dare you, I double-dog dare you motherfucker, SAY WHAT AGAIN try to present a reasonable case for that.

[Lil' Bitch 0]

If you're going to call Bush the worst President ever based on Iraq, then Lyndon B. Johnson should get the nom then for keeping us in Vietnam for all those years that got all those soliders killed for...nothing!

[snuffbox 0]

And you have to really nom Nixon for continuing that war nearly 5 years beyond the point it could have been ended on his 'own' terms anyway. And, for whatever reasons, he invaded Cambodia & Laos as well.

 

The last 50 years of America has seen three of its five worst Presidents ever.

[ZGangsta 0]

If we were doing true imperialism in the old-school sense, the Iraqis wouldn't have their own government, they'd be paying us taxes (except for the ones we made our literal slaves), we'd defile their women and force all their children to speak our language, and we'd arrogantly laugh about how we fully intend to never leave. That's what empires do.

It's scary how there's people (Anne Coulter etc.) who WISH this was the way Iraq was going and claim that running it that way would solve all the problems

[Dobbs 3K 0]

A scenario like the one outlined is the only way I think the US should agree to aid a foreign country militarily and economically from now on, even though it will never happen. (OK, without the rape and pillaging, duh, but you basically get what I mean).

[Narcoleptic Jumper 0]

Did you? Laugh out loud, that is? Really? For some reason I doubt your sincerity.

 

I don't know, I can't really remember if I did or not. I laugh often, though, at all manner of things, so it's a good possibility.

 

1. Call it what it is, a guerilla civil war. I'm tired of the pansy "sectarian" label.

 

Right, whatever.

 

2. Of course America's involvement has something to do with it. Namely, the fact that we changed the previous situation. That situation being the rule of Saddam and his party, who tended to execute anyone who looked at them funny. And then execute their family, their friends, their entire hometown, and everyone who sat near them in first grade. Except for the women, who got tossed into the rape rooms. That sort of tyrannical rule has the side effect of thoroughly discouraging people from committing "sectarian violence".

 

I guess I'll take your word for that? I don't know what's worse though, living under an asshole, but in reasonably peaceful conditions or having a bigger asshole blowing the fuck out of your neighborhood and killing your children and destroying your city and letting criminals run wild all over the country.

 

3. The United States isn't an empire.

 

Okay, now I'm definitely laughing out loud. Not an empire? Really? 150 some countries around the world currently housing the American military might take issue with that. Hell, anybody who isn't seriously deluded would take issue with that.

 

If we were doing true imperialism in the old-school sense, the Iraqis wouldn't have their own government, they'd be paying us taxes (except for the ones we made our literal slaves), we'd defile their women and force all their children to speak our language, and we'd arrogantly laugh about how we fully intend to never leave. That's what empires do. So come up with a different word for "imperialism" for the current ham-handed occupation and policing.

 

Who says we're doing "true imperialism in the old-school sense"? It's not like we're advertising the fact that we're an empire. We're low-key about it, especially to our own citizens, as you seem to be a prime example of. Empires aren't good for PR anymore.

 

Do you mean "how many terrorist have successfully attacked a target on American soil since 9/11"? To my knowledge, zero. Or do you mean "how many terrorists have attempted to attack American targets all over the globe"? Too many for me to begin to count. Either way, what's that question got to do with anything?

 

He was saying that after 9/11, it would be hard for people to not try it, "it" presumably being attacking America. That did not happen. People start attacking us OVER THERE after WE went OVER THERE started attacking THEM for a crime against us that no one has ever been punished for.

 

Oh, are you seriously gonna bring the "Bush caused 911!" conspiracy theories? Please do, I beg you. No, scratch that, I dare you, I double-dog dare you motherfucker, SAY WHAT AGAIN try to present a reasonable case for that.

 

No, Bush had very little (re: nothing) to do with it (like everything else about the job of presidency; he's a mouthpiece), and was possibly not even informed of it until well after the fact. Two words: plausible deniability.

[Jingus 0]

I guess I'll take your word for that? I don't know what's worse though, living under an asshole, but in reasonably peaceful conditions or having a bigger asshole blowing the fuck out of your neighborhood and killing your children and destroying your city and letting criminals run wild all over the country.

Please tell me you're not one of those assholes who claims that Iraq was better under Saddam. If so, you're ignoring the millions of citizens who died by violence, the mass executions, the rape rooms, and the fact that he did indeed use very real WMDs on his own population. Plus he started two pointless wars which got a bunch of his people killed? Plus he defied UN resolutions, causing the economic sanctions which killed countless MORE Iraqis. Hussein was an absolute monster, and anything else is preferable to what he did.

 

 

Okay, now I'm definitely laughing out loud. Not an empire? Really? 150 some countries around the world currently housing the American military might take issue with that. Hell, anybody who isn't seriously deluded would take issue with that.

You don't seem to know what the word "empire" means. In an empire, there wouldn't be those 150 countries. They wouldn't be their own sovereign nations with their own laws and governments. In an empire, there's JUST the empire, and nobody is allowed to even voice their disagreement. An empire owns the land, taxes the people, and directly rules over all of it from the capital. That's the situation with Alexander, the Romans, the Ottomans, Spain, Britain, Russia, and every other real historical empire you can mention. What America does now is unique and has no true precedent in history.

 

Who says we're doing "true imperialism in the old-school sense"? It's not like we're advertising the fact that we're an empire. We're low-key about it, especially to our own citizens, as you seem to be a prime example of. Empires aren't good for PR anymore.

Don't assume you know me, son.

 

He was saying that after 9/11, it would be hard for people to not try it, "it" presumably being attacking America. That did not happen. People start attacking us OVER THERE after WE went OVER THERE started attacking THEM for a crime against us that no one has ever been punished for.

There HAVE been attempted terrorist attacks, from the idiot with the shoe bomb to the foiled Dirty Nuke plot. But because of all the heightened paranoia about terrorists and drastic new security measures, none of them have succeeded again in this country.

 

No, Bush had very little (re: nothing) to do with it (like everything else about the job of presidency; he's a mouthpiece), and was possibly not even informed of it until well after the fact. Two words: plausible deniability.

Please tell me you're not one of those assholes who claims that 9/11 was an inside government job.