Was Bush the worst President ever?

[Darkwind]

Was George W. Bush the worst president ever? - The Week

Former White House press secretary Ari Fleisher told NBC News: "I'm increasingly doubtful, just because I think the lens of history is not changing. A lot of us used to say President Bush will look good and he'll be vindicated in the public eye. But realistically speaking, I don't see a lot of the people who write history all of a sudden changing their mind about George W. Bush."

As Jill Lawrence points out, the polling of historians seems to back this up.

Nearly 60 percent of the historians and political scientists in a 2006 Siena College survey rated Bush's presidency a failure and two-thirds said he did not have a realistic chance of improving his standing.

Not even close. Also, these historians had best write history with an eye to the truth instead of their clearly biased and hate-filled ideology.

He was not the best, but he was far from the worst. Any rewriting of history will be met with lawsuits to ensure that any publications with untruths in them will be labeled as such and never admitted into the curriculum of our schools.

I just don't understand he problem with some academics and their slanting things for their own ideology. Just tell the truth. Not the talking points.

 

[ClosedCaption]

In fact Bush is so great that the GOP wont even stand next to him...now thats greatness!

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Reagan was worse than Carter?

YES. Reagan began our true downfall. Next.

From Reagan's former Budget Director, and the architecht of Reaganomics:
http://www.thenation.com/blog/108027/reagans-budget-director-gop-policies-have-crippled-our-economy

 

[Oldstyle]

Gee, a poll of historians and political scientists rated W poorly? Is that really shocking? My guess is that 60% of those polled were liberals. I'd frankly be shocked if they DIDN'T rate Bush exactly that way...just as I'd be shocked if those same people didn't give Obama a great rating. Bush's place in history won't be written by people now...but future historians and political scientists...the same ones who will rate Obama on what he accomplished...not on what he said.

 

[auditor0007]

The worst thing W did was to be replaced by Obabble.

Actually, Bush laid the groundwork for a string of Democratic Presidents to come

you may be right RW.....but Obama just might be laying the groundwork for a third party guy....because he is just as bad of a leader as Bush was....and this Country needs a leader....and we need one now....

We could have had McCain in 2008 and/or Romney in 2012. It wouldn't have changed anything. The economy would be pretty much right where it is today. There would just be a different person occupying the White House. That doesn't mean that McCain, Romney, and Obama are all the same and would all govern in the same manner. What it means is that who occupies the White House rarely makes a difference as to what happens in the economy.

The economy crashed because we over-inflated the value of a lot of things, and much of that happened because Americans overextended themselves. Because of many reasons, it was really pushed to the limit, so the the crash was very hard. Americans found themselves with a huge amount of debt, much of it in upside down mortgages, but everywhere else too.

So what has been happening since 2008? America is paying down its debt, the federal government notwithstanding. Slowly, the real estate market is gaining traction. Once real estate values increase to a break even level and other debts are paid down, there is going to be a lot of money available to spend. On top of this, American business is sitting on trillions it does not yet want to spend. Once credit eases up as debts are paid off, spending from the consumer side will force business to put those trillions of dollars into play as they begin to expand their businesses.

The bottom line is that the person occupying the White House doesn't have that big of an impact on the economy, positive or negative. The problem with Americans is that they believe that the person in the White House actually has more power than they actually do.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Only an absolute moron would claim that Bush crashed the US economy, let alone the world economy.

No one said he did, but it did happen on his watch. This is what happens when you turn a blind eye to banks becoming unregulated casinos.

Mmm...mmm...so go ahead and tell me they still aren't today aye?
So when this market collapses, and it will...what will you say tothe $85,000,000,000 a month this administration approved to continue bailing these casinos out EVERY MONTH??

Sheep

Still waiting Peepers.....

 

[ClosedCaption]

Shoot Bush is sooo popular that when you mention him Republicans rather talk about Obama. Now thats pretty damn popular. The Repubs love him

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Ask the former chairperson of the House Banking Committee why he told America that Fannie Mae was doing fine when it was on the eve of destruction and he was charged with monitoring Fannie Mae? The economy collapsed while democrats held the majority in congress and dumb ass Harry Reid was diddling around with pompous hearings about steroid use in baseball.

Wrong. The collapse started in earnest in 2006, with the advent of thousands of foreclosures suddenly happening. It didn't happen overnight on Nov 7, 2006. I know you want this to be the case, but it just ain't so.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Still waiting Peepers.....

Waiting for what? Ask anyone here, and they will tell you that I am one of the loudests critics of corporate welfare of any kind. Our politicians are bought. I know this.

 

[kaz]

Was George W. Bush the worst president ever?

No, he's clearly behind FDR, Wilson, Lincoln, LBJ and Obama. He's definitely top ten though.

FDR and Obama for advancing socialism and instituting the two most evil government programs ever, Social Security and Obamacare. They are above the others because they make every American dependent on government for their basic needs.

Wilson for getting us involved in everyone's crap.

LBJ for making war an economic policy.

Lincoln and FDR for shredding the most important amendment, the 10th.

 

[theHawk]

Was George W. Bush the worst president ever? - The Week

Former White House press secretary Ari Fleisher told NBC News: "I'm increasingly doubtful, just because I think the lens of history is not changing. A lot of us used to say President Bush will look good and he'll be vindicated in the public eye. But realistically speaking, I don't see a lot of the people who write history all of a sudden changing their mind about George W. Bush."

As Jill Lawrence points out, the polling of historians seems to back this up.

Nearly 60 percent of the historians and political scientists in a 2006 Siena College survey rated Bush's presidency a failure and two-thirds said he did not have a realistic chance of improving his standing.

Bush was far too moderate. His idiotic belief that Islam is a "religion of peace", and the idea that we could bring democracy to the middle east, will always keep him down on any Presidents list. After 9/11 we should of just carpet bombed everything between Syria and Pakistan and only occupied the oil fields to repay us reparations. Instead he left Iran to get nukes, and let China, Russia, France and others take all the oil.

 

[mightydog]

During the last election the GOP and Romney did everything it could to distance there selves from any association with Dubya! If his own party treat's him like he's radioactive that should answer any questions as to what his legacy will be.

 

[rightwinger]

Any historian who would rate a President of just 5 years ago, the worst in history - isn't worth his weight in spoiled milk and should be shunned as a historian for the rest of their career.
Until top secret documents are released, until the full result of policies are felt - which can be a decade or more. It is not only presumptuous to make the claim, but it points a neon flashing arrow to the word "bias".

There are plenty of things you can rate the Bush Presidency on:

9-11
War on terrorism
Invasion of Afghanistan
Invasion of Iraq
Torture
Katrina
No Child Left Behind
Medicare Part D
The economic collapse

We know a lot about what Bush did and didn't do as President. He can surely be evaluated on that. The only thing remaining is the lasting impact of his decisions. That we will not know for a while

 

[whitehall]

Radical lefties are stuck in the "blame game" and they rely on the left wing media for support rather than the history books. FDR should have been indicted for incarcerating selected Japanese American citizens and confiscating their property. Harry Truman's timid personality couldn't confront his own general when his executive order went bad in Korea. We lost anywhere from 38,000 to 50,000 American Troops (depending on the DOD statistics) in three years and we are still living with the legacy. If you poll most of the union educated kids you would probably hear that Vietnam was Nixon's war instead of LBJ. It's not easy to find that 42% of democrats supported Bush's use of combat Troops in Iraq and that democrats tried to undermine the conflict for political purposes. It's not easy to find that democrats gained congressional majority in both houses midterm in Bush's 2nd term and that congressman Barney Frank was charged with oversight responsibility for Fannie Mae while the democrat senate was diddling with steroid use in baseball. It wasn't president Bush who told us that Fannie was doing fine when it was on the verge of collapse. Nobody ever asked Barney Frank the tough questions.

 

[turzovka]

"Was George W. Bush the worst president ever?"


Only if this survey was taken in 2007 or earlier could that ever be true. Since then, our nation has been "blessed" with a phony so shocking, yet he still gets voted in, which is truly the greater concern.

If these expert historians are making the call, and they voted to re-elect Obama, then their opinion has become utterly nullified.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Any historian who would rate a President of just 5 years ago, the worst in history - isn't worth his weight in spoiled milk and should be shunned as a historian for the rest of their career.
Until top secret documents are released, until the full result of policies are felt - which can be a decade or more. It is not only presumptuous to make the claim, but it points a neon flashing arrow to the word "bias".

There are plenty of things you can rate the Bush Presidency on:

9-11
War on terrorism
Invasion of Afghanistan
Invasion of Iraq
Torture
Katrina
No Child Left Behind
Medicare Part D
The economic collapse

We know a lot about what Bush did and didn't do as President. He can surely be evaluated on that. The only thing remaining is the lasting impact of his decisions. That we will not know for a while

Without being a tool I couldn't possibly argue against the fact that Bush was a lousy President. The incredibly bad job his administration did in the Iraq invasion alone cost countless American G.I. lives and $billions and $billions of dollars. Inarguabley the worst military mission second only to the policies during Vietnam.
Everything else on your list either has nothing to do with him, or he has marginal involvement, if at all. Each of those have other circumstances and policies outside the Presidency that contribute far...far..FAR more than Bush.

 

[PredFan]

how many presidents crashed the entire world economy?

Ask the former chairperson of the House Banking Committee why he told America that Fannie Mae was doing fine when it was on the eve of destruction and he was charged with monitoring Fannie Mae? The economy collapsed while democrats held the majority in congress and dumb ass Harry Reid was diddling around with pompous hearings about steroid use in baseball.

Here's the truth right here.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Radical lefties are stuck in the "blame game" and they rely on the left wing media for support rather than the history books. FDR should have been indicted for incarcerating selected Japanese American citizens and confiscating their property. Harry Truman's timid personality couldn't confront his own general when his executive order went bad in Korea. We lost anywhere from 38,000 to 50,000 American Troops (depending on the DOD statistics) in three years and we are still living with the legacy. If you poll most of the union educated kids you would probably hear that Vietnam was Nixon's war instead of LBJ. It's not easy to find that 42% of democrats supported Bush's use of combat Troops in Iraq and that democrats tried to undermine the conflict for political purposes. It's not easy to find that democrats gained congressional majority in both houses midterm in Bush's 2nd term and that congressman Barney Frank was charged with oversight responsibility for Fannie Mae while the democrat senate was diddling with steroid use in baseball. It wasn't president Bush who told us that Fannie was doing fine when it was on the verge of collapse. Nobody ever asked Barney Frank the tough questions.

Hes so popular that ^^ this guy wont throw his support behind Bush instead of that he shows his support by blaming liberals for the bad news.

But don't ask that guy if he supports Bush...You don't want to do that..

 

[eflatminor]

Was George W. Bush the worst president ever?

Wilson
FDR
LBJ
Carter
Obama

All cut from the same cloth. All central planners that did more harm than good with their meddling. All among the worst presidents ever.

Bush, being a meddling central planner hell bent on spending money we didn't have, is a close runner up.

 

[PredFan]

Fact: Bush warned of the coming economic crisis and asked the Democrat congress 5 times to do something about it and they refused.

You know nothing...but you're a democrat so that goes without saying.

He did absolutely nothing to stop it - the democrats had a slight lead from Nov. 7 2006 on - and supermajority for what, all of a month? You really think the corporatist right wingers were going to let the dems reign in their idols on Wall Street? LOL!!! The repubs had the reigns for 6 YEARS. And I'm not a democrat. I'm a registered Independent.

How dense are you? Bush asked Congress to do something about the coming economic collapse 5 times, FIVE. Bush could not do it, it had to be congress. It's not all political what happened, but it's WAY more Congress's fault than Bush's. Fact.