And the reason we haven't been attacked has nothing to do with Iraq. And putting US troops in harms way without real reason isn't being "nice" to the troops. Rumsfeld has LOTS to answer for, from what I've read. He almost messed up the nice cheap easy CIA-sponsored plan to fight in Afghanistan, and he did mess up the invasion of Iraq, with his low troop levels.
I hardly see the success in not having an attack on US soil when thousands of US citizens have died in Iraq since 9/11.
The dow is not a good measure of a countries prosperity nor is GDP. The dow is a good indicator of the rich getting richer. GDP is another flawed indicator, production does not equal a better standard of living (otherwise china who is ranked 4th in the world would have hire standards of living). I agree however! Whose job was it to surround themselves with competent people? You can't blame anyone but Bush on this one. And let me be abosuluty clear, when I speak of Bush I'm speaking about him AND his entire administration, from the people he has appointed to their policies and their actions. So can I blame Bush and only Bush? No but I can blame his administration and ulitmately only one man is responsible for that. Here is the problem I have with Iraq; it's not so much the handling of it (ok that has a lot to do with it and rumsfeld deserves most of the credit for the fuck up. I again refer you to my second paragraph), what I have a problem with is the INITIAL decision to go into Iraq in the first place! I refer you to Bush's war (some of you have seen this), it comes complete with time line and over 400 interviews. FRONTLINE: bush's war | PBS Yes, Americans are begging for a competent leader and are grasping at anything that might resemble one (enter Obama). I agree that it's subjective on how it will be viewed in the end but his fuck ups are real and have had immediate or close to immediate impact. I'm very objective, it just so happens my views are contrary to yours. And when you make comments like, your objectivity comes into question. I haven't been around that long but I voted for Ross Perot in 1992. I also voted for Arnold in the last govner race in California. The worldwide belief? That belief came from BS this adminstration fed them!! Again, every piece of evidence this adminstration offered up was debunked at the time, the only reason any of it had any weight was because people were labeled unpatriotic or unsympathetic to the US's tragedy. Please MSP check your history and check the facts, after Kuwait Iraq was a lame duck on all accounts!
And let me just add one final thing: To ask if Bush is the worst president ever, is a horrible question when not qualifying what is meant by worst. If we mean worst as in catastrophic for America(ns) then I'd say no. If we mean worst president in terms of handling his job and performing his duties then I would have to say absolutely! The latter is where I'm coming from.
in my lifetime he has been the worst. ive only lived through four presidents, reagan, bush sr, clinton, and bush jr the motherfucker is worst all around, all the above, all thats offered.
OMG!!! I've lived through 10 presidencies. I don't know if he's the worst. It all depends on what is wanted from a president at the time. Ike, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter,Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II. The underscored are definately contenders.
There was no support to the people, they were ignored. Extremist groups rose up because people found light in them over the American government who ignored their needs.
I wasn't arguing for standard of living. You yourself said the economy period. Big difference. But if we are arguing that GDP isn't an indicator of standard of living, what about the gni per capita? United states per world bank: 2000: 35190 2005: 41680 2006: 44070 2007: 45850 And please entertain me and present some evidence as to why the dow or GDP are not indicators of prosperity? The national science foundation seems to think otherwise (with regards to gdp per capita, a derivative of gdp): source: S&E Indicators 2008 - Chapter 6. Industry, Technology, and the Global Marketplace - Key Economic Indicators of U.S. Competitiveness and again, it is shown as going up: Science and Engineering Indicators 2008 - Figure 6-2. GDP per capita for United States, EU, and Japan: 1989–2005 - so while yes, the economy is shit right now, everyone seems to conveniently forgotten that we were on cloud 9 less than a year ago. I also have a graph that shows that the ratio of household spending for the top and bottom quintiles has changed negligably, so its not that the economy has become massively top-heavy (the graph cites the bureaus of census and labor stats, but i can't seem to find the survey on their sites. the graph is in 'economics today' by roger miller) Oh, and for reference, china's gni (this is ppp, as is the above): 2000: 2340 2005: 4110 2006: 4700 2007: 5370 Hmm, that seems to be going up a lot. Guess that booming economy isn't doing shit for them.
The Gross Domestic Product isn't a good indicator because it doesn't take into account the Gross Domestic Debt, which can inflate the GDP figures as leverage (spending money you don't have) increases on personal, business, and government levels. We, if not from the Reagan era itself, then from the Clinton administration onward at the very least, have been fueling an artificial appearance of prosperity by finding ever more complicated ways to pass debt around as if it were money. This has led to the endless reeling from one bubble to the next, as everyone looks for ever quicker ways to get money out of the debt-flow. We never really left the stagflation days of the Carter Administration, but we managed to paper it over with documents filled with fancy words that really just meant "more debt for you!" We may have been on cloud nine, but we were there using rented second-hand wings! Now the feathers are falling off, the rental return date is overdue, and we're plummeting back to Earth to leave a big messy crater...
On the same thought then, it isn't bush like people are implying. (not arguing for Bush. As I stated earlier, i don't think presidential/political actions have a full impact until a while after they're out of office.) And its globalized financial markets at this point. Although europe is pointing at the US for causing the whole mess, guess what? They invested enough in it to be getting dragged down with us (even worse for many parts. England and Iceland are getting rather fucked.)
I really dislike Bush, but this is true. Anyone who says Bush is anywhere in the bottom 5-10 presidents have no idea what a history book is. Nixon? Ford? Carter? Pierce? Grant? Garfield? The list goes on, and I have a feeling that history will be far kinder to Bush than everyone is right now.
You know, I kinda feel bad for the man. Enter office and within a year get a huge bundle of shit plopped on your plate. It's hard to know exactly what anyone would do after 911 until actually put into that possition. It's also hard to know what actually happened because we only get to know what we are wanted to know. Conspiracy? IDK about conpiracy concerning 911, but I do know that the various agendas infiltrating our government are not in the best interests of the people....that i do know.
He's probably one of maybe 5-6 presidents that have had to face such difficult times, and the only one to do so under such intense media scrutiny. I wonder how well Abe Lincoln or FDR would have done under the withering heat of all those cameras?
he's the baby bear prez? All kidding aside. I'm glad it wasn't my job to deal with the shitstorm that fell on him.
Regardless of where I stand on the dude's administration, I have to admit I would have him over/go over for a bbq and a beer anytime. GoodBye Mr.President | :: JoeJet.com :: Photo Channel The dude just seems like fun.
This survey of historians came out a few weeks ago, but I was looking for a link I posted a while back and saw this thread again. I figured with our great successes in political debates these days I thought I'd throw another piece of poo into the fight Bush does indeed get put near the bottom, 36th worst (out of 42), but certanily not the worst by any means. Clearly the list has adjusted a bit since it's first run in 2000, it will be interesting to see how it sorts out the next time it is run. (btw, didn't find what I was searching for )
Yeah, I saw this list a few weeks ago and just rolled my eyes. Not to say he's going to end up on the top of the list or anything, but I would have been shocked if academia had placed him anywhere else but near the bottom. Over time you'll see him move up, and depending on how things shake out in the Middle East I think you'll see him appear in the middle 3rd minimally. The list itself seems pretty odd. Nixon's too low on the list for example, and Kennedy and LBJ are way too high. I'd love to know who this group of 64 people surveyed are. C-SPAN just says "historians or professional observers of the presidency".
