It's being asked alot, what do the Lanys pundits think?

He's not worse than Nixon. Yet.

How so Canuckboy?

I had to vote for best, just because it looked so lonely there.

I called you a douchbag, because youre the first to create a poll in the politics forums... However appropriate it really is

Otherwise i would have voted 'No', he is not the worst president ever(not by personal experience, but according to history books and second hand experience).

Bush is the mother fucking anti-christ, and as big an asshole Nixon was, let see, he did illegally bomb Cambodia, but I think this Iraq dibacle, is worse.

Nixon spied on his enemies, Bush had the laws change to make him a king so he could spy on whomever for any whim, that is worse.

Nixon accepted a hundred grand cash undisclosed campain contribution, Bush stole the election, that is worse.

Nixon was a beacon in foreign policy, opening up talks with China and started a very fruitful partnership paying off in spades in economics, Bush is a near sighted toilet mint who has completely alienated the muslim world, and the non-xtian americans, which of course is much worse.

Done and done.

When are you people going to get over it already and just admit that he won?

I have to say, I feel completely unqualified to answer this question, given my general lack of knowledge of all our past presidents.

I have a feeling there's a lot of people here whose ignorance won't stop them from making a proclamation one way or the other anyway :p.

I can say this; I have found him to be the worst president in my living memory, although I had to think about that a while; Reagan is right up there.

_________________

Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master.

The biggest enemy of freedom is a happy slave.

The real enemy is the fucking congress that rubberstamped everything.

We should never have a single party in power ever again.

The two party system is the worst! They have you all fooled into thinking one guy is better then the other. Everyone in congress is just as bad. The only thing that changes is public perception and opinion.

How is Bush any better or worse then Truman. Bush is just the guy that got stuck with a war the people are conflicted about.

I dont mind that everyone likes to join the "lets hate the boss" club but to hear it simplified down to "is this guy the like the worst or what" like some valley girl from the late 90s seems to be an insult.

BTW

A little background info and one caveat. That 100.000 that Nixon took, it may have been a million, can't remember, but it was a quid pro quo. It secured Jimmy Hoffa's pardon, Bush still worse

Hillary Clinton and many other democrats approved of this war, right along side many Republicans.

I hope everyone remembers that when they go to vote for the President in 2008.

With the intelligence that was presented to Congress and the American people, there weren't a lot of people who *didn't* initially support the war, Bello.

Once that intelligence was found to be ... lacking in veracity, that support was pulled.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

s/stuck with/manufactured/

_________________

I don't blame Bush for going into Iraq, it seemed like the right thing to do at the time (and as others have stated, there was support from both parties). I do blame him for not getting more world support in the action and for allowing the global opinion of us drop so signifigantly. It's part of his job to have the US shown in the best light possible around the world, and he has done very poorly in that aspect. The position of president requires a good deal of charisma, and he falls short in that catagory. To say he is the worst president ever is an exaggeration though. I remember a few years ago with the Monica scandal and the Chinese campaign contributions people saying Clinton was the worst ever, which was also wrong. It seems whoever is in office does something to make them seem horrible at the time, but that is because it is the freshest in our memories. Years from now Bush will be seen as a mediocre president who poorly handled a difficult situation. That's not bad enough to get the worst ever. In my lifetime, Jimmy Carter was probably the worst. Very nice guy, but did lousy with policies and set our economy back years.

Who? Name someone we may have heard of. Provide links, please.

_________________

Here's one. Including their speech.

And while you may not have heard of them, they're in Congress and made the speech there against the war in Iraq BEFORE it started. Date is in the upper left.

_________________

Of course the worst ever would have to be Andrew Johnson. Other than that I feel the jury is still out on Bush. He isn't anywhere near the top, but I have a feeling he isn't near the bottom either. Most people like to think that the things that happen in their lifetime are the biggest, best or worst in history. This is particulary true for people in those college aged years. Carter was the worst I can remember and you will find very few people that were adults or realy adults during that time that will disagree. That is, unless you ask someone really old, then they will say Hoover or something. It is just a matter of perspective.

The farther I get from Clintons term the more I feel he was completely average, the same with Regan. Bush has fallen alot for he reasons Drajeck posted, but who knows how everything will look 20 years from now. Nixon wasn't that bad other than the scandals. If he didn't have Watergate and the associated scandals he would have gone down as an above average president.

Not true, but I appreciate the love anyway.

He has the potential for being the worst depending on how well the mess he leaves behind is cleaned up. We're going to be dealing with the aftermath of this adminstration for the rest of our lives.

Gotta love Dr. No. I know I've linked stuff from him here a few times before. Whether anyone actually read it is a different story.

Our local paper has been featuring a series of columns addressing this issue the past week. The overall consensus seems to be that based on his terms so far, Bush ranks in as one the 4-5 worst presidents in history. The caveat being he still has 2 years left and anything is possible.

James Madison. War of 1812.
James Polk. Mexican-American War.
James Buchanan. Inaction during secession of southern states.
Andrew Johnson. Corruption during Reconstruction, other issues.
Richard Nixon. Illegal bombing Laos & Cambodia. Support of military junta in Chile. Watergate.

I think Reagan deserves to be included in the list, because of actions in Iran, Iraq and Nicaraugua.

Of course as highly esteemed as Eisenhower is generally regarded, it was his administration which was responsible for the CIA false flag operations which led to the overthrow of Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh's nationalist government and the installation of Mohammed Reza Pahlavi as Shah. It's difficult to find any administration without some taint of scandal, corruption or questionable actions - domestic or foreign.

I think the worst legacies of the Bush administration will be seen as these 3 specific areas:

1) The unprecedented number of signing statements declaring the executive exempt from the legislation to which they are attached.

2) Language contained in the "John Warner Bill".

3) Language contained in the "Military Commissions Act".

These actions follow the same pattern of consolidation of executive power as did the creation of FEMA originally.

Bush might not be the worst president in history, but he definitely deserves to be on the list, IMO.

http://www.publiceye.org/liberty/fema/Fema_2.html
http://proutnewsnetwork.org/NWO/files/fema.html

Lincoln was the worst president ever. He actually gave rights to our frigging property and let them go free! I mean shit, he might as well have allowed our cows to vote while he was at it. Or maybe my backhoe should get the same grade fuel as my car just to avoid discrimination.

You phail at phunny

Wow, we actually have 60 members of the board? I was a little surprised at that.

Anyway, I'd say yes worst president thus far. I wish I could say it was only the Iraq War, but as pointed out it goes far beyond that - especially concerning the numerous breaches against civil liberties. Cumulatively he's probably set this nation back a good 5 years or more. It's going to take a long time to bring ourselves back from this reputation with the world.

As far as the intelligence is concerned, there were a number of people saying - "wait, it's not quite as clear cut as it seems" before the war started. The IAEA for example was pretty clear that they found no indication of weapons, Scott Ritter was on the ground there for extended periods of time as a weapons inspector and not as one and found no such evidence. But it really came down to a character judgement call - something many people seem to lack these days. Many people within the Bush administration seemed to contain a lacking in this department, particularly those most ardent in pushing for war. Anyone who didn't watch Colin Powell speak in front of the United Nations with his little compilation of so-called evidence and didn't say to themselves "there's something fucked up about this" was just plain blind, period. The signs were all there and plain to see. Ignorance is really a silly excuse at this point when people were constantly telling you that something was fucked up. You just didn't like the liberal sources it came from.

Let's see, at a time when we had an enemy in front of us (Al Qaeda & bin Laden) W took us into Iraq. By doing so, he made Iran more powerful in the region, leaving the world with less leverage in talks to stop Iran from developing a nuclear program. He destabilized a country whose admittedly horrid leader was both contained and stopped (pretty much) from committing the 'crimes against humanity' that had been his hallmark. He also, in his pursuit of this folly, lost the U.S. the worldwide goodwill that was expressed after a horrific event on our soil.

Now on to domestic matters. He has abandoned any claim to fiscal conservatism, created an atmosphere of religious separatism and intolerance, increased our exposure to foreign influence via our foreign-held debt and foreign control of many key infrastructure components, seized power from a congress (who all too willingly ceded it in the interests of releasing accountability), and championed tax code changes that make us much less a country of equal opportunity and more of a two class country similar to Mexico.

He calls for Syria and Iran to control their borders with Iraq while refusing to gain meaningful control of our own borders. He calls for religious moderation while himself pushing for less moderation at home. Hypocrisy?

Yeah, he's one of the worst; history will show whether he's THE worst.

Kula

It is so obvious how few of you didn't live through Carter.

History paints such a different picture. Just curious... ANYONE old enough to have lived through Carter mark Bush as the single worst President?

(not saying he isnt one of... just wondering)

_________________

I was born in '57, so I guess that qualifies me as someone who has "lived through Carter". I've noticed comments here, and in op-ed pieces in the paper, about what a terrible president Carter was, yet never seen any examples or evidence presented to support that opinion. Care to be specific about why you evidently think he was?



I wouldn't mark Bush "the single worst", but I don't think any president can be conclusively labeled that way. For one thing, much of what recent administrations have done is still undisclosed. The propensity for the Bush administration to re-classify previously declassified information is another negative point. Another aspect is the fact that public opinion shifts with time. What was vitally important to the people during a previous administration often means little to the current population.

Of course, Ford could be added to the list too, for overall ineffectiveness and specifically for pardoning Nixon.

Carter was the worst I've lived through but Bush is coming in a close second and he just might pull ahead before all is said and done. I was alive during Nixon but was to young to remember.

Ayup.

_________________

Andrew Jackson

I'm also old enough to recall the Carter years (although I was young). While he was certainly a poor president I don't think he damaged the country as much as Bush has. I guess you do?

Kula

/agree 100% with this and think G.W. is probably the worst ever now or will be before it's said and done. He hasn't done anything remotely positive and has set this country back 5-10 years (or more), IMO.

I'm also curious what happened to all the people that I saw posting on these forums who were so gung who supportive of Bush no matter what he did or said. That same sort of blind obedience to their party that Congress seemed to have and helped get us into this mess.

I definitely have issues with some of Mr. Bush's actions but he didn't pussy foot around on the Iraq debate and he did the right thing (and personally I don't give a fuck about the reasons, we can argue that for ever but bottom line he removed something that in the long term could of only lead to a much worse situation). So calling him short sited on that issue is just damn wrong, if anything (whether he intentially thought of it this way or not), I have the utmost confidence that his actions were in general the best for the world in the long term.

And bad intell or not, maybe you forget Saddam basically giving the finger to the U.N and the world when it came to inspecting the country etc. Don't let your dislike for Bush blind you into thinking everything he did was 100% wrong. Saddam was bulling the U.N and the U.N failed to fucking do anything about it. And if you have never dealt with a bully....a stern talk and a hug afterwards isn't really the way you deal with them, you walk up and knock them straight on there ass.


So bla bla. of the presidents I have lived through and the ones I have researched through out the years I would say he is just as bad or good as anyone else. He had an extremely difficult position to deal with and in the end he handled it better then most poloticians who have zero back bone. And I for one don't care if he can't say or spell nuclear

Fixed! =p

heh-- we gave the finger to the UN too, when we invaded. Should we invade ourselves?

I'm right here. The surprising ones are the guys popping out all over claiming "I said it was a horrible decision from day 1!". My question is where the hell would you all be if the intelligence was correct (as the most part of the ENTIRE WORLD believed) and there was a huge WMD stash? Would you still thump your chest and say we would still be better off with Saddam having his finger on a big red button? If you were alive back in WW2, would you claim AFTER Hitler was brought down that we should never have gotten involved, and all those concentration camp stories were probably fabricated?

Now in hindsight, I can say invading Iraq has caused us more harm than good. It has not worked out well. That is completely different from saying we never should have invaded. At the time, all intelligence pointed to Iraq having a major WMD program, and Saddam was acting as if he did also, by not allowing UN inspectors in. He was given multiple ultimatums and defied every single one.

Invading Iraq was the right decision that has had the wrong outcome. It has done some good (Saddam was a sadistic leader who terrorized his countrymen) but the cost for changes was not worth the cost in lives, or the PR damage we have taken in the global community. Much of that PR damage could have been avoided if Bush was a more charismatic president, and if he better at getting the rest of the world involved. That is his real failing, not his initial decision to invade.

Since I take crap for bad analogies all the time anyway, here's another one...

Your doctor tells you there is a 90% chance you have a tumor that requires surgery or you will die. Based on this expert advise, you elect to have the surgery. It turns out the tumor was not cancerous (the 10%) and due to the surgery you have serious mental problems now.

Were you wrong to get the surgery because the 10% occurred? Of course not, you have to make decisions based on the best information available.

False.

I even remember the threads after the presentation to the UN by Mr Powell, where a good number of us were saying "that was it? that was your evidence? You better be hiding something under the table".

All evidence did not point to a major WMD program. And guess what? There wasn't one. Funny how that works.

It pointed to an administation eager to get into Iraq for some reason and stretching (even fabricating) when required to get there.

_________________

I'm tired of people claiming the entire world believed our intelligence. This kind of rewriting of history is what makes any kind of meaningful discussion difficult.

This war was controversial from the *beginning.* There were many many people from day 1 saying we shouldn't go in. Unfortunately, the Democrats were spineless; the political pressure to go along with it because of 9/11 was enormous. How can you folks not remember this stuff? It is a travesty that the Democrats went with politically convenient rather than principle, but it is equally a travesty to refuse to look at evidence that may hurt your case for going to war-- something the Bush administration did over and over again.

From day 1, there were people all over the world questioning the veracity of the intelligence, both publicly and privately. From day 1, there were people pointing out that we had no real evidence of WMDs, and that the evidence brought up was shady at best. From day 1, there were millions of people all over the world that were against this war, both within and outside the US. From day 1, there were people pointing out the evidence that Bush was looking to fuck with Saddam since even before 9/11-- 9/11 just gave him the political capital to pull it off.



No. Either your memory is cheating you, or you are listening to a lot of propaganda. All intelligence did *not* point to Iraq having a major WMD program-- only the evidence Bush and co. chose to dwell on and push on the public. There was plenty of contradictory evidence, plus the opponents of this unnecessary war had the disadvantage of having to prove a negative. Guess what? It's impossible to prove a negative. Can you prove to me that there are no flying elephants? PROVE IT, OR I INVADE YOUR HOME.

Saddam did not defy every single one. In fact, one of the reasons (among many) the vast majority of the world was against the invasion was because UN inspectors were getting unprecedented access to his facilities, and not finding anything. The inspectors said, "we need more time, please wait!" and Bush said, "omg no, imminent threat, we must go now!" But there was no imminent threat; there never was, and many people were pointing that out. But Bush and Cheney kept saying, "omg possible mushroom cloud," pulling visions of nuclear holocaust into a nation that still remembers the fear of the Cold War-- with no evidence to support an imminent attack. We could have waited. The inspectors wanted us to wait. Half our country wanted to wait. 90% of the world wanted to wait. But Bush said, "yeehaw!" and went ballistic, literally.



This is one of the many things that millions of people, the majority of the world, in fact, were saying "from day 1." That's where we were, sir. All you had to do was open your eyes and turn on any news network that wasn't American.




Given the lack of solid evidence for an imminent attack with WMDs (or even without WMDs), I doubt even the most charismatic of leaders could have convinced the world to come along.

It was not Saddam Hussain's actions that got us in Iraq. It was 9/11. It was Bush's greatest stroke of luck in getting his invasion plans to stick. Without 9/11, the country would have been unwilling to participate in what was a shakey war from the beginning. There is something wrong with our system, when a terrorist attack that had nothing to do with Iraq is the primary catalyst and getting us to invade them, destroy their country, kill tens of thousands of civilians, as well as thousands of US troops. God bless America, indeed.

And to all of you that condemned me and everyone else who opposed as unpatriotic, or terrorist supporters, or America haters, I have two things to say. First, as Surcam said a few weeks ago, "I told you so." And second, "Fuck you, you blind propaganda eating bitches."*


*If you did not participate in such condemnation, whether you supported the war or not, of course I'm not talking about you. Pull your panties out of your ass.

Then why were we bombing Iraq from 1992-2000? What reasons justify those actions? Why did the U.N. still have sanctions against Iraq? What justification was there for that?

I have no problem saying we were fed bullshit, but perhaps the bullshit didn't just start when Bush was elected. He was still recommended by the previous administration that a regime change was needed in Iraq. Do people totally forget the 90's and Iraq or just choose to ignore it entirely?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec98/clinton_12-16.html

While we were duped, the lack of evidence was still more believable than the idea that Saddam was playing the game by the rules. Flying elephants are hard to believe. The fact Saddam once did have WMD makes that theory a little more believable than something that's never been proved to be true.

We beat Iraq's army. We won the war vs Iraq. Iraq is now a different battleground.

We are fighting insurgents from Iran, Syria and other nations IN Iraq.

There is so much HATE for Bush that he can't take a crap without being criticized that wiped his ass wrong.

Bush is being slammed on stuff that the previous administrations said (see: Saddam and Social Security)

Bush is not a great president. However, he is FAR from the worst.

Ever consider that a good number of those within the Republican Guard and the Iraqi military in general realized that a direct confrontation with our military would have been suicide, and they decided to hunker down and blend in with the general populace until we thought we had won - then carry out a long dragged out guerilla war? That was the only real way they had to win, why is it so hard to believe that they carried out such a plan instead of saying *almost everyone* is from outside countries?

That's not so hard to believe anyone who doesn't actually believe that it's a possibility is just being thick-headed.

If we open that possibility we have to look at the possibility that they also knew we'd be looking for the non-existent wmd. That opens the door for the possibility of wmd being smuggled out of the country before the war started (however if the case, it'd be nowhere to the levels described to us by our current administration, that should be made clear), that is if we are truly want to look at it in an astute manner. That's not saying that's what happened, that's saying how is it not possible, after all for years Saddam did have known wmd. As recently as 1998 he was still believed to possess them, what on earth made them disappear between 98 & 03? Sanctions? The thought of making an invasion on his country look illegal in order to gain worldwide support, at the same time it makes America look like an aggressor as well as incompetent sounds just a bit better though.

Fact is, we didn't win the war against Iraq, we won the battle against the army they threw up against us. That's all we've won so far because we didn't find the shit we went in there to find. It's now a secular war, which is one we won't know for sure was for the best or worse until there truly is a winner and loser. If Iraq becomes a Democracy based around Islamic laws controlled by Islamic fundamentalists, then it'd be really hard to say we won anything.

http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm

See the link for the 'resolutions' he violated if you need a reminder.

(sorry .. long post but, be thankful, I don't post often any more, so please bear with me!)

I believe that Bush thought he was a consummate politician - he gave reasons for what he thought must be done. He gave reasons he thought the American people might accept and back, not perhaps what were the real reasons. In his mind, the issue was go or no go, be involved or not be involved - and he voted 'go' and 'be involved' and then engineered politically how to get to there. Rightly or wrongly, he was doing exactly as he felt his mandate, his personality and his American immersion 'programming' had taught him to do.

In addition, he had to make his decisions in the light of 9/11 and during his first short while in the Presidency while still getting his feet wet. We went to Afghanistan. We aren't doing so much better there either, but, few screamed when he thought we needed to do that. He thought the people would understand - and some did. But, he was already on a 'roll' that was somewhat predetermined by 9/11 - an event apparently not foreseen by any President.

People ultimately voted to be involved but were (as the government hoped) not smart enough to look beyond the stated reasons in making their personal decisions about the 'invasion' (don't call it a war unless you know something I don't - as far as I know it was never actually declared a 'war', was it?). I think, in retrospect, we can lay some blame for these subsequent events to a great extent on some, perhaps even many, of the American people, not the President, because a) some of us saw what was really happening (through the political fog that was being intentionally created for the above reasons) and never held him to the WMD thing as being the real reason for going to Iraq or called it a 'lie' when what people thought they heard him talk about was never found and b) I think many people always wanted Bush to be 'wrong' so they would have a way to put him down and bitchslap him forever and ever.

Conundrum - is the only way to be a great President to be quiet and try to appease all the American peoples, never taking a real stand on any issue, just trying to get through one's Presidency by making few decisions of any criticality and never looking outside of the country at how the world is influencing the future of this one, or vice versa? I think Bush did one of the latter - unfortunately, he was not able or capable of taking care of the other at the same time and his time more or less has probably run out to do both (especially since doing one has probably worsened the other).

In actuality, I think the decision to send a blockade to sit outside Iraq inevitably lead to the decision to invade and was not really a 'con job' to get us to invade but it turned out to look that way in the end - and should have been better anticipated. It was the really critical initial decision - and I don't remember (feel free to correct me if you like) many people saying 'go look but don't touch' was a bad decision.

I believe the reaons the invasion was inevitably necessary (or Bush thought it was necessary) once we had the blockade in place was entirely about local (to the US) politics - the blockade accomplished nadda and cost a fortune (a fact that the media reminded us of hourly), so do you pull back and slink home having spent a lot of money and having already made the situation worse, not better - or do you go in and hope to do a quick and dirty 'I told you so'? If any decision was wrong, it was the one to blockade - but it was an understandable decision at the time given how most of us think in our part of the world.

Saddam just didn't kowtow on queue and left us looking like idiots, idiots without the humility to retreat and try another strategy - that was Saddam's plan and it worked! We didn't anticipate Saddam well enough though - because, in our ken, people should bow and apologize and behave when so chastised. We westerners just don't understand these people - and we need to 'get that' we may never understand their 'logic' and 'intent' and act accordingly.

The way it looks to me is that he chose the latter route rather than to be criticized harshly for spending the public bucks on something that failed to positively 'influence' Saddam's behavior any more than UN resolutions had. He had hoped that he would be able to accomplish the deed (of getting rid of Saddam) quickly and that the world would rally to help the Iraqis. He misjudged the influence that Saddam's money had on some key countries and failed to get their assistance when it counted most. Deeper and deeper into trouble we went - but, we were stuck then. All decisions after that had to be based on what had gone before - as they do now when we are so far in the muck we can barely keep our noses open. He also misjudged how some countries believe they should act in this world to protect their own people, with some humility and by keeping a fairly low profile - because America just doesn't operate that way and can't quite believe that that is a good strategy. Some countries however stuck to their guns on that one.

Therein, in an understandable, and probably even historically forgiveable, comedy of errors lay the cascade of 'mistakes' that has led us to today.

We were not really prepared for what was to come and how long it would all last and how much different the problem now would be from the problem that appeared to be the issue back at the time we invaded, but, I doubt any President would have gotten any more right than Bush did. We'll never know though, will we? But, I believe, warts and all, when one looks at events through the eyes and eyes of those who initiated them, decisions were always based on good intent even if they do not look that way now, to some people, and even if they may seem to be/have been the wrong decisions.

At any rate, whatever he told the people to get their 'approval' didn't make him wrong about going into Iraq ... just unfortunately wrong about whether he could accomplish his goal quickly enough that the American people would not rebel against the initial decision.

I am certain that no matter what he/we had done - go in, not go in, work fast and get out, work slowly, whatever - criticism of whatever action or inaction would have arisen from the other party and from the people and been just as virulent as it is today. That is the American 'way'! We have the 'right to criticize' (read the fine print) and so we do. We don't really care whether we are right or wrong ... we just care that we have the right to try to find fault in anything or anyone except we ourselves (personally) do. It is our true national sport. And, we play it with great disdain and impatience - our national virtues.

America is really in a no-win situation now (globally and at home), but, it was that way before the Iraq 'invasion' and it would have been so whether we had gone in or not.

With the exception of those with extremist Muslim views and their followers (their logic is very different from the following, though they will also use this logic too if they can to advantage) ... how America and Americas are perceived around the world is the compound result of American egos being spread about the world for at least the past 40 years (hence MANY presidents are responsible, each in part for deepening the 'perceptions' of America the all 'powerful' - and everyone who voted for any of those presidents is also responsible) - as well as the result of the entire western world (including America) not quite getting that some people hate just because they hate. That latter fact is not anything we can influence or change but is everything we need to be aware of and protect ourselves against.

Our 'pc-ness' is going to lead to our destruction as a viably sovereign country in time if we don't get a firm grasp on reality and stop just blaming everyone and everything else for our lack of cohesiveness and understanding of these realities. Bush actually got part of that I think and see where it has gotten him with the American people. So much for 'free speech' and the democratic way. LOL

His mistakes were really probably in not understanding the real threats of this conflict - that these people are so ethnically different that only a dictator-like government can control them for the time being, and, as I mentioned above, that we cannot ever underestimate the energy and resources of those who hate for hate's sake - which, though he was cognizant of those, he did very much underestimate in that regard. He also underestimated America's real power in the world in today's world of global avarice and economic protectionism - hmmm funny how that goes when egos interfere, isn't it.

Democracy as we have here in the US is not necessarily or immediately a good model for everywhere else (I have my own views on whether it is a good model for any country to be honest but that is neither here nor there right now). It is at least not a good system for those not yet ready for it and the people of the Middle East are NOT ready. What should have been done was probably to put a 'benevolent' dictator in place. But, we/that dictator would still be dealing with the ethnicity issues (and who among the Iraqis is qualified to hold that post by 'lack of ethnic attachment' anyway?) and the 'we hate you' issues - and we would still be trying to help them out, but perhaps we would be able to, in a more 'controlled environment' where the average citizen in Iraq is kept at bay and not allowed to take sides till the din dies down, have been able to make more progress at less cost. Who knows - hindsight is always 20/20.

At any rate, I think we have to learn that we are not always right! Until we have some humility, we are doomed to always be perceived the way we are perceived today and have been for many years, under many Presidents. We will not win new friends with this attitude. Some friends are not worth having anyway ... but some are, and some are better models for how to coexist in a turbulent world than we are!

On the other hand, our Presidents are human. They, like every one of us, make mistakes. The proof of a good president is not apparent in easy times. The proof of a good president will rarely or ever be seen for many years after they leave office. The proof of a bad president however is very often revealed by his/her morality and integrity (or lack thereof) imho - and that can often be seen during their presidency. The rest remains to be seen only in context from a distant viewpoint. The proof of any presidency's rightness or wrongness, in general or in connection with any particular decision during his/her term of ofice, will always also be skewed by the views and experience of the people making these evaluations. Most presidents do the best they can with what they have, but, they function from within their own microcosm of reality, as do most of us when faced with a task.

Most presidents also don't have a frigging clue about what it is like to be an average citizen - or if they ever did, they forget pretty darned soon after getting into the political arena. Bush, like probably every President before him in the past 200 years and every President after him for the foreseeable future, has this failing. They govern average citizens but are not of that genre. What do you expect? LOL

So, now the 'people' have taken the really major decisions about Iraq (his apparently sole defining 'achievement) out of the hands of the President. Whatever happens now (and god, I have no clue what should or shouldn't happen), history judge Bush down the road on either his lack of ability to keep the decision-making power in the Presidency or his good fortune in not being able to do so. LOL again ... if we weren't living in this drama, it might be very, very hilarious to look at from the outside.

Anyway, good luck in trying to determine (in your lifetimes) if Bush was really a good or terrible president or if that even matters at all in the grand scheme of things.

can someone give me the cliff notes version please? thanks!

-cc

lol

Bush gave us the wmd story as a means of getting public approval for the invasion of iraq, not neccesarily because that was the whole reason, or even the main one for going in. Since the average american doesnt care about, or couldnt even begin to understand the actual political issues involved in invading another country, we got fed an easily digestable reasonable excuse as our sound bite.

At least, I think thats the gist of it. Oh, and right at the top, Sadaam violated something like 17 un resolutions directly, and god only knows how many indirectly.

Chiasma, you make some interesting points, and I thank you for posting. I'm not going to address it all, but I want to just hit on three things in your post.

Number 1:



Let me make a guess that I was one of the people you were thinking about when you typed this sentence. It's possible you weren't, but I haven't made a positive comment about Bush in a long time, and considering my posts in this thread, it's possible.

This is NOT how I think of politics. This is never how I think of politics. That man has earned my distaste because of the repeated awful decisions he has made. It's true I never voted for him, but I also was optimistic at the beginning even if he was to be elected. I remember a Time article on Bush written before he was elected President that described him as the "uniter" he was claiming to be in his stump speeches. I remember reading about all the reconciliation he supposedly did as governor of Texas between the Repubs and the Democrats, and defending the guy to my more liberal friends.

And finally, I would never "hope Bush is wrong" about something so serious as a war. Thousands have died-- if anything, I would have hoped he was proven incredibly right beyond any of our expectations, so that at least we could point to something and say, "there's why he did it." I never "hoped" he was wrong, because him being wrong meant the meaningless death of thousands on both sides. Thanks for casting me and others like me as incredibly cynical bastards though, I appreciate it.

Number 2:



No. The whole point of my post is that it *wasn't* hindsight. There were millions in the US, and billions outside the US, that predicted what was going to happen in Iraq, who were correct *before* we invaded. But it didn't matter. We were going to war no matter what, assuming the public would go along with it. There was *nothing* Saddam could have said or did once 9/11 happened to stop it. Before 9/11 Bush wanted to do it, and after 9/11 he had the public support to do it, through fear mongering politics. Saddam could have been the most conciliatory person ever, doing anything we asked and we still would have invaded.

Number 3:



It's your very last phrase that bothers me here. No, it would never be hilarious. Thousands of people's lives are over as a result of what we are seeing here. Millions of lives have been affected. I cannot think of any way in which I could ever look at this, whether I was involved or not, as "hilarious." Trivialization of something this important, and this devastating to so many, is almost distasteful to me.

I understand the impossibility (and unfairness) of proving a negative, but Iraq was in that position because of their invasion of Kuwait. They are the ones that brought the onus of proving innocence upon themselves, just as someone on parole must take urine tests to prove they are still drug free. The UN made this simple for Iraq to do, just give free access to UN weapons inspectors. These inspectors were repeatedly delayed and not allowed access to places when scheduled, and when I say repeatedly, I mean so many times it was a joke. It doesn't take CIA intelligence to figure out something fishy is up if they keep denying inspectors. That is why even the Democrats believed there was a WMD program. It may have turned out to not exist (or more likely was moved to Syria) but all common sense pointed to guilt, and Iraq already was on "parole" for invading Kuwait. I know people like to forget this was a regime that already proved it would attack without cause simply because it wanted something and had the military might to take it. Yes, the UN inspectors advised against war and requested more time, but that does not mean they were not hindered at every step of the way by Iraq. We gave Saddam so many chances to comply I think it's foolish to pretend he was doing everything in his power to assist the world in knowing he didn't have WMD's. Quite the contrary, and my memory serves me just fine in that regard. If anyone forgets, they should click Chiasma's link.

I also don't understand shots like "we supported Saddam in the 1st place and helped keep him in power in the past". I don't know the validity of those statements, but even if true, what is the point of that here? You certainly can't lay that on Bush, and even if you could, would you claim that once you assist a country or leader, you must always support them even if later evidence shows them to be a threat to world peace? It just looks like a cheap shot to the entire USA, and if we're going there every country in the world can line up for plenty of wrong doings. Every country has done things wrong, but I believe no other country in history has done more charitable things as America during our tenure as a super power.

Simply put- we don't really get to pat our back as a country for our selflessness to the world on this one.

_________________

There were at least as many, probably more who thought otherwise. if not, it never would have happened. He had more than just the flag waving hicks of texas in his corner at the start, he had numerous countries who looked at the evidence and agreed that hmm, this aint right. Remember the stink that was raised when the countries trying to use thier security council veto were exposed as having taken part in numerous VERY illegal deals with iraq, selling them shit they had no business getting thier hands on? THOSE were the people objecting to invading iraq, and who can blame them? The last thing they wanted to risk was us turning up illegal components stamped with a made in france, 2003 label on it.

Im not saying the evidence was iron clad, it wasnt, but when you are dealing with a guy who was violating his agreements with the un from the day the resolutions were written, who did everything in his power to obstruct the inspectors and keep them from doing thier job correctly, while at the same time trying to keep it from being so obvious that even the un would have to do something besides write another memo, it looks very, very, bad. We had photographs showing him moving around suspicious equipment, constant hindering of the people whose job was to determine wether he was in fact removing all his wmd, unless he was just feeling somewhat suicidal, why was he acting this way? If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and moves like a duck, I dont need a dna sample before I can come to a conclusion about what im looking at.

By all means, you come up with another reasonable explanation for Sadaam to have been acting the way he was for what, 12 years? What other reason would he have to hide wether he was getting rid of his wmd or not?

I bet you could think of a reason all by yourself. All you have to do is put yourself in his shoes.

Ask yourself: would you, as the leader of a United States without WMDs (hard to imagine, but give it a shot), be willing to have your worst enemy (you pick-- Iran? North Korea? Iraq? whatever, doesn't really matter) come inspect nuclear facilities in your country just because they demand it? Why not?

Clearly since you don't want them here, you must have WMDs. If it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, tastes like a duck... I guess it must be a duck.

Fribur, you are talking like that would be an equivalent scenario, and it would not. Those weapon inspection sanctions were from the UN, not the USA. They were because Iraq INVADED Kuwait. You don't get to pick and choose which UN weapon inspections you want to allow after you start, and then lose a hostile bid to take over another sovereign state.

I have an unfortunate reality check for anyone that does wonder what it would be like if the country roles were reversed though...we would all be dead. Every single one of us. If you don't believe that, you don't understand the hatred those countries currently have for us. Bush has escalated the hate, but he didn't initiate it. Religious zealots did, just as their Christian counter-parts did back during the crusades. We were wrong back then, just as the Islamic extremists are wrong now. I just hope the moderate Islamic leaders can gain enough power to set their ship straight faster than we did it.

Iraq lost a war. Allowing weapons inspectors free reign was a part of the cease fire agreement, not some random act. The UN didnt pick Iraqs name out of a hat and start telling them to disarm, they were told to do that because its standard freaking practice that when your country loses a war, it has to get rid of its long range offensive capability, and in this case that included the wmd that it DID have at that point. Cooperating with the inspectors is the only thing that keeps your already ruined country from getting invaded all over again. Your analogy is so far off base its scary. A closer analogy would be this

The US lost a war, it doesnt matter against whom. As part of the cease fire agreements, we now have to prove we are destroying all our wmd, among other things, so we cant just wait till we build up our army again and start the whole fight over immeadiately. Instead of doing that, we constantly kick out the inspectors, make claims that weapons have been destroyed while they were gone, but offer no real proof, continuously move around equipment when noone is around to see whats being done BEFORE we allow inspectors into the facility, continue to defy the UN as it writes resolution after resolution, and in general, act like we are hiding wmd left and right. In that case, uh, yeah, id have to say that sort of behavior strongly indicates that the US is hiding some weapons. Maybe not out of a wish to use them, but violating its agreements just the same.

Timed for Presidents Day 2009, C-SPAN today releases the results of its second Historians Survey of Presidential Leadership, in which a cross-section of 65 presidential historians ranked the 42 former occupants of the White House on ten attributes of leadership.



Apparently no, he's not the worst.

Poor William Henry Harrison. He's the one that died from pneumonia six weeks after taking office. I don't think it is really fair to include him in such a listing at all.

_________________
Hope is the new black.