Worst president ever, he was a puppet of his advisers and his advisers were greedy and morally bankrupt. Remember this is a guy that couldn't open a door correctly.
Poll: The Final Verdict on George W. Bush?s Presidency?
- Thread starter anti_strunt
- Start date
That's what the trickery was, he was still convinced that 9/11 was Saddams fault. It was then later used in his campaign. The campaign apparently worked as you can see where he ended up.s0denone said:
That's how I see 9/11 got him to term 2. Apparently you think the same, but a different reason as to why 9/11 helped him.
Andrew Jackson I believe was the only president to have duels while in the office as well and even had bullets in his chest from the ones they were unable to remove. If he had someone who he disliked he didn't bother blackmailing or arresting them, he'd kill them himself. I don't think I'd want him to lead the country again, but I will admit he was easily one of the most bad ass presidents we've had in control of the United States. The most bad ass thing Bush can claim that he did in his Presidency is he dodged a shoe in a press conference. I personally believe that if Andrew Jackson was president he'd probably nuke a country if it's world leader so much as sneezed in his presence.Wouldukindly said:
I still say many of the bad presidents were fun/good people(there are obvious exceptions: Nixon). Even Harding would have been interesting to watch him run amok. Bush is probably fine(as a person) like how Carter was.
Cheney was a little shady in the whole thing so...I guess I'll classify him with Nixon.
Cheney was a little shady in the whole thing so...I guess I'll classify him with Nixon.
I voted "Other" just to let you know.
A president who believes he was called by God to become the leader is deluded. A president who had such obvious connections with big business and industry cannot govern without conflict of interest. A president who is such a fucking PAWN for those around him is simply undeserving of the post.
So no, not a good president. I just don't know enough about other US presidents to say whether he was their worst or not.
A president who believes he was called by God to become the leader is deluded. A president who had such obvious connections with big business and industry cannot govern without conflict of interest. A president who is such a fucking PAWN for those around him is simply undeserving of the post.
So no, not a good president. I just don't know enough about other US presidents to say whether he was their worst or not.
A) Actually the washed masses are pretty ignorant of history as well.Samurai Goomba said:
B) Did you hear how Harding banged his secretary in the closet as soon as he was done with his poker game with his cabinet.
C) You forgot to mention Buchanon who essentially let the civil war happen and didn't try to stop it at all.
I think although he did do some extremely unpopular things, he had good intentions. He just didn't go about instilling them in the right way.
This, along with events and his (and his administation's) handling of them, will mean his terms will go down in history, but for all the wrong reasons...
This, along with events and his (and his administation's) handling of them, will mean his terms will go down in history, but for all the wrong reasons...
I voted "Good intentions, overcome by events."
But I really think that a lot of people just dislike him w/o knowing all the facts (not everyone, but it seems sometimes that people hate him because it's cool to hate Republicans in a lot of places). I'm not saying he was the greatest president ever, nor am I saying that I think he was above average; but I also would not place him as the worst ever.
EDIT: I might place Hoover or Coolidge in the running for worst ever. That said, I'd like to add that it's all an opinion so I'm open to debate but I'd appreciate it if I didn't get berated for my stance.
But I really think that a lot of people just dislike him w/o knowing all the facts (not everyone, but it seems sometimes that people hate him because it's cool to hate Republicans in a lot of places). I'm not saying he was the greatest president ever, nor am I saying that I think he was above average; but I also would not place him as the worst ever.
EDIT: I might place Hoover or Coolidge in the running for worst ever. That said, I'd like to add that it's all an opinion so I'm open to debate but I'd appreciate it if I didn't get berated for my stance.
I believe he is an honorable man. He had to deal with situations that no one has ever had to deal with, while placating both sides of the issue. Let's face it, America wanted blood after 9/11, so I'm sure there was a lot of pressure to act. I only hope that Obama gracefully allows Bush to go about his business. The last thing this country needs is a witch hunt. Bottom line, no attacks for seven years. Hopefully Obama can do at least that. He made a lot of mistakes, but he has done an amazing amount of good (Africa, for one), but those things just get ignored.
He is one of the few presidents who was not a complete slimeball. He had values, principles, and intelligence. He was a victim of circumstance.
I personally think that Bush naturally wasn't really the worst person to be president, but he had to deal with a lot of very serious and challenging things that would be difficult for any president, and this one certainly wasn't the right one for the job.
The rest of his failings are due to his being a Republican and being from Texas.
The rest of his failings are due to his being a Republican and being from Texas.
I'm a direct relative of A. Jackson on my mother's grandmother's side. So that makes me a second-badass twice-removed!
I'm an Australian, so my take is mainly based on foreign policy.
It's a bit too early to tell, but if there are even moderately successful democratic governments in Iraq and Afghanistan in the long term, then Bush's presidency will be remembered as being very successful and very historically important in the long run, and I'm optimistic that that is possible. They probably won't become 1st world nations, but at least if they are moderately stable democracies in the order of, say, Venezuala, then that would be a huge improvement compared to what was there before, something that few presidents could claim to leave as a legacy. If they don't do well, of course, then he probably won't be viewed well. A lot of the criticism of him for Iraq and Afghanistan doesn't take the same view history will; people just assume that because people died it must be bad. But you can't judge something objectively like that, you have to consider a particular option against the likely alternatives. And what would the likely alternative in Iraq in the long term without the Iraq war?
The other really good thing about the Bush presidency is his (widely ignored) foreign aid initiatives; he's quadrupled foreign aid to africa and doubled foreign in general, including major anti AIDs initiative. I remember one recent poll where Bush had a ~80% approval rate in Africa thanks to this charitable spending.
He was president in very difficult times, and I think it's been hard to stay objective about what Bush has done, but in the more objective view of history I think there's a very good chance he will be viewed well.
So I voted for quite good.
It's a bit too early to tell, but if there are even moderately successful democratic governments in Iraq and Afghanistan in the long term, then Bush's presidency will be remembered as being very successful and very historically important in the long run, and I'm optimistic that that is possible. They probably won't become 1st world nations, but at least if they are moderately stable democracies in the order of, say, Venezuala, then that would be a huge improvement compared to what was there before, something that few presidents could claim to leave as a legacy. If they don't do well, of course, then he probably won't be viewed well. A lot of the criticism of him for Iraq and Afghanistan doesn't take the same view history will; people just assume that because people died it must be bad. But you can't judge something objectively like that, you have to consider a particular option against the likely alternatives. And what would the likely alternative in Iraq in the long term without the Iraq war?
The other really good thing about the Bush presidency is his (widely ignored) foreign aid initiatives; he's quadrupled foreign aid to africa and doubled foreign in general, including major anti AIDs initiative. I remember one recent poll where Bush had a ~80% approval rate in Africa thanks to this charitable spending.
He was president in very difficult times, and I think it's been hard to stay objective about what Bush has done, but in the more objective view of history I think there's a very good chance he will be viewed well.
So I voted for quite good.
Sad how you could get in trouble where I live if you were to utter that.ChristmasChild said:
I'm positive that would make him popular with Canada, UK, and Russia.Wouldukindly said:
Well before I say anything I think you should know that I am from New York, and there is that New York/Texas rivalry thing going on, so I'm supposed to make fun of and look down on Texas, and enjoy doing so very much.fluffylandmine said:
I don't think I should go on, but to answer your question: him.
Why is this even a debate? He's one of the worst presidents any country could had in it's history. The guy might not be malicious? Probably not, he actually looks like that dorky but fun guy one would hang out to drink some beers, but let's just say it would be the last guy you will leave in charge of anything important.