Bush: Bad president? Or WORST president EVER?

[dragonrider]

I voted for "Bad". It's not logical to vote him the "Worst President of All Time" unless you actually study all the presidents and their doings. All too easy to make a judgement on the president of your lifetime.

True, it's hard unless you've studied history to compare him to other presidents. But I don't remember any who truly stand out in a negative way the way I think Bush will. There was Nixon, who was really pretty bad, but even he had some good points: signed the OSHA laws, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Endagered Species Act, the EPA (all things that Bush has worked to weaken). He reached out to China. So he is remembered as a bad president for his corruption, but he had some accomplishments. Bush really doesn't have accomplishments that I can recall. Maybe my mind is too clouded by his glaring failures to see the accomplishments.

How will history remember him? Remember Reagan? Considered at the time of being the worst ever but now is considered one of the greatest by both parties.

I don't think Reagan was considered the worst ever even at the time. There were many people who disagreed strongly with him but there were others who revered him when he was in office. With Bush, there are those who defend him, but no one who reveres him. I think the most he can hope for from history is some softening of the anger, but he'll still need to accomplish something in order to be seen favorably. And if these messes he has created linger long after he is gone, he will bear blame for them.

Bush has had to contend with another attack on our country but unlike Clinton he reacted like a Commander-in-Chief is suppose to:

Then in February 1993, the first major terrorist attack on American soil took place at the World Trade Centre in New York.

Six people were killed and more than 1,000 - mainly civilians - injured in the blast. The US implicated Egyptian terrorists in the plot to attack targets in the country.

After the New York bomb, terrorist activity against the US returned to Middle East targets.

Seven people were injured - including five Americans - in an explosion in 1995 near a US-run military training centre in Riyadh, the capital of Saudi Arabia.

A year later, a huge explosion killed 19, and injured many others at a military complex housing US troops at Khobar in the east of the country.

The US responded by moving their remaining troops in the region in fear of reprisals.
BBC News | Americas | History of attacks on US personnel

And then acknowledging that Iraq had to be dealt with
Russian President Vladimir Putin said yesterday that his intelligence service had warned the Bush administration before the U.S. invasion of Iraq that Saddam Hussein's government was planning attacks against U.S. targets both inside and outside the country.
Russia Warned U.S. About Iraq, Putin Says (washingtonpost.com)

instead of just a random bombing like Clinton done:
Bombs, Ahoy...Iraq: From Clinton to Bush
Bombs, Ahoy...Iraq: From Clinton to Bush

The poll is really about Bush, not Clinton, but it is fair to compare. I take it what you are saying is that Bush has responded better to the threat of terrorism than Clinton did.

I'm not so sure Bush's record on terrorism is as good as he might want us to believe. The biggest terrorist attack in our history occurred during his presidency. I'll concede that he does not bear full responsibility for those 3000 civilian dead. But it did happen when he was president, not someone else. And the administration says that those people killing our soldiers in Iraq are terrorists, so it seems like we have actually lost another 3000 to terrorists in the last 5 years of war. With 6000 dead, by the numbers it doesn't look like a very great record on terrorism.

And as for taking the fight to them, we definitely had to do that in Afghanistan. But I do not think we had to in Iraq. The terrorists were not there --- now they are. Bush used to ask, "Do you think the world would be a better place with Saddam Hussein still in power?" And the answer is, no, of course not. But now you could ask, "Do you think the world is a better place with Al Qaeda in Iraq?" And the answer is, no, of course not. The real question is , "Do you think the world is a better place with Al Qaida in Iraq than it was with Saddam Hussein in power?" Then I'm not so sure. If that's the choice and it's going to cost 3000 dead and a trillion dollars to get Al Qaeda instead of Saddam, I think I'll just stick with Saddam.

Then lets not forget about Katrina.......not to many recent Presidents that have had a major city wiped out.

If we're rating Bush....why not congress? Overall performance.......I'll give him a "Good".

Have a good one!:s4:

I'm not sure you want to bring up Katrina as a point in Bush's favor. That situation was, and still is, a disgrace, and the federal government failed misearably. It was actually Heck-of-a-job-Brownie I had in mind when I mentioned the incompetent boobs Bush assigned to important jobs. Brownie is only one of an army of incompetent boobs Bush appointed. Some Republicans seem to have so much disdain for government that they really think it doesn't matter who gets appointed --- turns out it does. And if they think goernment is so useless, why do they always want to be in charge of it?

But I totally agree with the other posters that if anyone was to rate his presidency, they should also do the same for our former presidents. They've all had pros and cons, good policies and bad policies, etc. Some just had more of one side, and less of the other. And right now, Bush is doing a good job staying off my shit-list and on my good side... I just got finished figuring out my taxes. My wife and I will be in pretty good shape this year, and I might actually get to use that tax relief check to use in the growroom. I can't complain at all about that!

He gets an 'OK' from me. :thumbsup:

My feeling about the rebate check is that it is just another example of Bush's fiscal irresponsibility. It would have been more honest of him to say, "We want you to spend more to prop up the economy --- each one of you get out your credit cards and spend 600 dollars you don't have." Since everyone would have thought that was stupid or crazy, he did it for you. Bush is going to borrow 600 dollars for you to spend, and it will come back to you in the form of future taxes. At some time in the future you or your children will pay back that $600 plus interest in the form of higher taxes, maybe $1200, or $1800, or $2400 depending on how long it takes to pay it off. Bush and the congress are just trying to buy votes with this one by taking a cash advance on your credit card.