Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Not even spin can't save Bush from being one of the worse presidents ever!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-03-06 09:49 PM
Original message
Not even spin can't save Bush from being one of the worse presidents ever!
What Will History Say?

He's Only Fifth Worst

By Michael Lind
Sunday, December 3, 2006; Page B05

It's unfair to claim that George W. Bush is the worst president of all time. He's merely the fifth worst. In the White House Hall of Shame, Bush comes behind four other Oval Officers whose policies were even more disastrous: James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Richard M. Nixon and James Madison.

What makes a president horribly, immortally bad? Poor luck is not enough. Some of the greatest presidents, such as Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt, have inherited crises and risen to the occasion. The damage must be largely self-inflicted. And there's another test: The damage to the nation must be substantial. Minor blunders and petty crimes do not land a president in the rogues' gallery.

Snip...

Doing nothing can be even worse than doing something wrong. Take the worst president of all time, Buchanan. In office when Lincoln's election in 1860 triggered the secession of one Southern state after another, Buchanan sat by as the country crumbled...

The Civil War era also gave us the second-worst president: Johnson, Lincoln's vice president and successor, a Tennessean who vetoed civil rights acts and blocked the 14th Amendment because he didn't like blacks...

The third-worst president is Nixon, a criminal in the White House who is still the only commander in chief ever to resign. Many presidents have abused their power, and the "imperial presidency" existed long before Nixon. But he was the only president to run a criminal gang out of the Oval Office engaging in spying and burglary while he sought to corrupt the Justice Department, the FBI and the CIA. (By contrast, Bush's misguided authorization of torture, secret CIA prisons and illegal eavesdropping were at least directed at suspected terrorists, not at his personal and political opponents.)

To qualify a president for the Worst of All Time list, a war must be catastrophic as well as unnecessary...

The two big, unjustified wars on my list are the War of 1812 and the current conflict in Iraq, and the first was far worse than the second...

By contrast, George W. Bush has inadvertently destroyed only Baghdad, not Washington, and the costs of the Iraq war in blood and treasure are far less than those of Korea and Vietnam. Yet he will be remembered for the Iraq conflict for generations, long after tax-cut-driven deficits, No Child Left Behind and comprehensive immigration reform are forgotten. The fact that Bush followed the invasion of Afghanistan, which had sheltered al-Qaeda, with the toppling of Saddam Hussein, will puzzle historians for centuries. It is as though, after Japan had bombed Pearl Harbor, FDR had asked Congress to declare war on Argentina.

Why did Bush do it? Did he really believe that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction? Was it about oil? Israel? Revenge for Hussein's alleged attempt on Bush's father's life? The war will join the sinking of the USS Maine and the grassy knoll among the topics to exercise conspiracy theorists for generations, and the photos of torture at Abu Ghraib will join images of the napalmed Vietnamese girl and executed Filipino rebels in the gallery of U.S. atrocities.

Like all presidents, George W. Bush wants to be remembered. He will get his wish -- as the fifth-worst president in U.S. history.

more...


Just wait until the hearings: Iraq, spying, torture...! Factor in the lies and he's number one hands down!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
sweetheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-03-06 09:58 PM
Response to Original message
1. Yes, but how much of his mongrel tide will roll back?
I'm chuffed at the taking of congress, but overestimating one's position is not good statesmanship.

The plan is for more prison, more war, and final solutions of disempowerment for all of our
collective decline, and the sentience, the goodwill of generations past is dying for a new zion
of video gamers who've spent decades shooting at something, practicing the only solution, in a
gamer's perfection, driving and shooting, driving and shooting, a few laws and some new paint
can certianly spiff 'er up, but organic process will achieve all these things... no authority(ies)
are necessary, bush is a tree falling, TIIIIMMMBBEERRRR!!!! Will anyone hear it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-03-06 09:59 PM
Response to Original message
2. one thing
"The two big, unjustified wars on my list are the War of 1812 and the current conflict in Iraq, and the first was far worse than the second..."

I beg to differ - we still have not seen all the fallout from the Iraq debacle.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Art_from_Ark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-03-06 10:14 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. The War of 1812 could be justified in a way
because the British, with their impressment of American seamen, were still unable to acknowledge that Americans were now a distinct citizenry and no longer royal subjects. In fact, it is often called "The Second War for Independence". While the war officiallly ended in a draw, it nonetheless convinced the British to give up trying to retake their lost colonies.

Iraq, on the other hand, is just a total disaster, without any justification whatsoever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MikeNearMcChord Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-03-06 10:05 PM
Response to Original message
3. Buchanan, and Andrew Johnson were bad presidents
but nowhere near the level of corruption that Shrubous Boobious has done. Ulysses Grant had a corrupt administration, but then again he was out of his depth as president and like Harding was used by cronies. Bush is not only out of depth, but never really gave a flying f*** he wants to get paid after he leaves and to hell with the country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Art_from_Ark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-03-06 10:19 PM
Response to Original message
5. Buchanan gets a bum rap, but
there is absolutely nothing he could have done to stop the secessionist movement, short of armed occupation. The Southern states started seceding because Lincoln was elected on an abolitionist platform, not because of Buchanan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-03-06 10:21 PM
Response to Original message
6. That $500MM he is trying to raise for his "library" is going to attempt
to do precisely that. Sad that they'll be a future industry devoted to Presidential rehabilitation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gulliver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-03-06 10:32 PM
Response to Original message
7. He forgets a lot.
1. The fire in Iraq is still burning. We won't know how much damage Bush did until the fire is out -- if it ever goes out.

2. The author is not taking into account the intangible cost to the country in terms of its world standing, credibility, and status. No president has ever humiliated the U.S. as the world's only superpower until Bush.

3. There were no nuclear North Koreas when Andrew Johson was president, so Johnson did not endanger the future of mankind the way Bush's foolish foreign policy has.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kiouni Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-03-06 10:56 PM
Response to Original message
8. I agree with his logic
historically speaking it makes sense. although I personally would have bumped old GW in front of Nixon just because we have yet to prove W did worse until the investigations start I'll agree with this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 03:42 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC