George W. Bush: The Worst President in the Last 100 Years

[maxiep]

Bush did not control the weather (except to the extent that his policies promoted climate change).
However, he did appoint a completely unqualified hack to be head of FEMA. That's something he had 100% control of.

barfo

What? An unqualified hack as the head of a Federal agency? Heck, all they need is more money and everything will be OK!

 

[maxiep]

Actually, EVERY time it is first and foremost up to the local First Responders to take care of themselves. This is why we have federal funding for local First Responders.

That was my exact point.

 

[Stevenson]

It's quite obvious you know shit about intelligence, to include running and vetting sources. Thank God you aren't involved in making executive decisions within our government.

Sorry to have to play this card amigo, but I wrote a book about foreign policy.

 

[MARIS61]

Bush/Cheney is by far the most criminally treasonous POS to ever walk this land.

So sad anyone would attempt to dispute that.

 

[MARIS61]

Bush did not control the weather (except to the extent that his policies promoted climate change).
However, he did appoint a completely unqualified hack to be head of FEMA. That's something he had 100% control of.

barfo

Checkmate!

Pretty much every appointment by him was unqualified, and most were criminals with no great love for the Constitution.

 

[Stevenson]

It's looking like a landslide:

CNN: (CNN) -- Abraham Lincoln finished first in a ranking by historians of the 42 former White House occupants ...George W. Bush finished 36th in the survey.

Harpers: History News Network’s poll of 109 historians found that 61 percent of them rank Bush as “worst ever” among U.S. presidents.

 

[Ed O]

It's too early to tell. Calling Iraq a massive mistake is a matter of almost pure subjectivity at this point. It definitely was/is expensive, but there's a pretty significant chance that it's a region-changing move (in a good way).

As for knowing about 9/11 beforehand... I dunno. Stating that Bush knew Obama wanted to attack the US as an argument that he should have been able to prevent the attack on the Twin Towers? I don't buy it. I joked about Obama attacking the country about a year earlier in a company-wide off-topic mailing list... it was pretty obvious that we were (and are) a target.

Ed O.

 

[MARIS61]

Life was good for 7 of the 8 Bush years. By this measure, he is one of the better presidents. Life was good for 5 of the 8 Clinton years, 6 of the 8 Reagan years, NONE of the Carter years, 2 of the GHW Bush years....

You must be delusional, that's really the only conclusion that can be reached from that statement, unless maybe you are simply referring to your own personal/financial situation.

It's been well over a decade since the average citizen of this country could say they had a "good" year, and over 40 years since this country had a President who accomplished anything major for his country to be proud about.

That would be LBJ and the incredible strides made for Civil Rights under his watch.

Carter has personally done more for Americans than any President in history, but it has all been done as a private citizen in volunteer service, which only makes it that much more valuable.

 

[barfo]

As for knowing about 9/11 beforehand... I dunno. Stating that Bush knew Obama wanted to attack the US as an argument that he should have been able to prevent the attack on the Twin Towers? I don't buy it. I joked about Obama attacking the country about a year earlier in a company-wide off-topic mailing list... it was pretty obvious that we were (and are) a target.

Ed O.

If only Clinton had killed Obama when he had the chance! Or Michelle. Why hasn't she ever killed Obama?

barfo

 

[MARIS61]

It's too early to tell. Calling Iraq a massive mistake is a matter of almost pure subjectivity at this point. It definitely was/is expensive, but there's a pretty significant chance that it's a region-changing move (in a good way).

As for knowing about 9/11 beforehand... I dunno. Stating that Bush knew Obama wanted to attack the US as an argument that he should have been able to prevent the attack on the Twin Towers? I don't buy it. I joked about Obama attacking the country about a year earlier in a company-wide off-topic mailing list... it was pretty obvious that we were (and are) a target.

Ed O.

Typos, or wishful thinking/sour grapes?

 

[Ed O]

Oops. Yes. Wishful thinking. I'm sure that my life would be a LOT better with our President dead.

Clearly I haven't slept much lately.

Ed O.

 

[Ed O]

Carter has personally done more for Americans than any President in history, but it has all been done as a private citizen in volunteer service, which only makes it that much more valuable.

Um. What?

Washington won the Revolutionary War and stepped down voluntarily after two terms, setting the important precedent. Lincoln freed the slaves.

But Carter has done more for Americans. OK.

Ed O.

 

[MARIS61]

I believe AMERICA, not some guy named George, won the Revolutionary war.

It was, by and large, a guerilla war fought by commoners, which is why we won. Although political careers were built on taking credit for victories, in reality Generals had very little to do with the eventual outcome.

The modest beginnings to ending slavery were a mere by-product of the Civil War which was fought under Lincoln, but it was not begun or fought TO end slavery, and Lincoln had little interest in freeing the slaves or not freeing the slaves. His goal was to preserve the Union, which he did accomplish at the cost of roughly 618,000 citizens (more than the total dead in all wars since combined). A more effective statesman should have been able to prevent the war entirely through mediation and diplomacy. Lincoln was obviously not that man.

 

[Stevenson]

Um. What?

Washington won the Revolutionary War and stepped down voluntarily after two terms, setting the important precedent. Lincoln freed the slaves.

But Carter has done more for Americans. OK.

Ed O.

Read his quote. He said "personally" - meaning, what Carter did after leaving the White House. There is a strong argument that he is the most successful ex-president ever.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Hmm, interesting. I don't remember President Bush not mobilizing the school buses in New Orleans. Oh, wait, that was Mayor Nagin. I also don't remember President Bush not mobilizing the Louisiana National Guard. Oh, wait, that was Governor Blanco.

Mississippi was hit at least as hard as Louisiana and came out fine. Louisiana was the one that struggled. Is it because President Bush is anti-Louisiana? Nope. Mississippi had superior mobilization in place. Sometimes, it really is up to the inidividual cities and states to take care of themselves before they look to the Federal Government.

Jeeze, he's made up his mind and just isn't even open to suggestions. Nothing like someone who has no ability to listen.

 

[barfo]

Jeeze, he's made up his mind and just isn't even open to suggestions. Nothing like someone who has no ability to listen.

Like the subject of this thread, ya mean?

barfo

 

[PapaG]

It's looking like a landslide.

Yep, it is. You know s**t about how our government works, starting with intel and ending with First Responsders.

 

[toutlaw25]

Sorry to have to play this card amigo, but I wrote a book about foreign policy.

I was actually referring to running sources of intelligence, which are not the same as a source for writing a book. Thanks for proving my point, and just realize you have no idea how the intelligence community functions, because there's no shame in it.

 

[PapaG]

Like the subject of this thread, ya mean?

barfo

To make the thread is one thing. To show one's ignorance when arguing the "point" of the thread is quite another.

 

[PapaG]

Originally Posted by Stevenson
Sorry to have to play this card amigo, but I wrote a book about foreign policy.

Great. Link it, let us critique it, and take credit for it.

 

[Shooter]

Is there really any debate?

Hoover comes close, but he didn't have Bush's foreign misadventures, nor his penchant for unAmerican activities.

Hee, hee.

I guess with the abysmal way Obama is performing, and the way his numbers are crashing in the polls, it's easier to think about Bush, eh?

 

[bodyman5001]

Sorry to have to play this card amigo, but I wrote a book about foreign policy.

I heard that a 10 year old virgin wrote a book about sex.

I am lucky nobody has ever used the phrase "I wrote a book about it" to my face as I would likely kick that person right in the crotch.

I think there is a law somewhere that states that someone using that phrase towards you is an acceptable defense in an assault case. I should write a book about that and cement it as fact.

edit, my response has nothing to do with my thoughts on this issue. I would need to interview Bush personally and ask him WHAT THE FUCK?

 

[MARIS61]

I heard that a 10 year old virgin wrote a book about sex.

I am lucky nobody has ever used the phrase "I wrote a book about it" to my face as I would likely kick that person right in the crotch.

I think there is a law somewhere that states that someone using that phrase towards you is an acceptable defense in an assault case. I should write a book about that and cement it as fact.

Kinda like a certain poster thinking he's an expert on foreign governments because he lived abroad briefly.

The flip side of that I guess is he knows less than others about his own government since he was absent when they remained home.

 

[MARIS61]

In the final analysis, history will remember that the only thing Bush ever successfully completed was a children's story titled "The Pet Goat".

 

[bodyman5001]

Kinda like a certain poster thinking he's an expert on foreign governments because he lived abroad briefly.

The flip side of that I guess is he knows less than others about his own government since he was absent when they remained home.

Well, to me saying that you have been somewhere has more weight than I researched it on the internet and wrote a book about it. I don't really put much weight in either one, but the I wrote a book about it line just grates on my nerves.

Dig up and reanimate Henry Ford and lock him in a room. Give him a test about modern automobiles and give me the same test. I will kick his butt. Who is the famous automotive pioneer and who is the bondo slinging nobody? I would be the second, yet I would win.

I bet Henry Ford wrote a book at some point, but I could be wrong.

 

[bodyman5001]

In the final analysis, history will remember that the only thing Bush ever successfully completed was a children's story titled "The Pet Goat".

Is that the one he was reading when informed of 9/11? if so.......

What was he supposed to do, run to the nearest telephone booth and change into Superman?

It would have been better if he had screamed at the top of his lungs and ran out of the room running over children like George Costanza...(another classic Seinfeld moment by the way)

I love how people think Bush was mentally challenged but wanted him to jump up and take charge in a second.

 

[Stevenson]

What I dont get about posting here is why we can't disagree without being disagreeable. Why, when someone has a different take, they must be stupid or ill informed. Why can't they just come to a reasonable different conclusion?

 

[maxiep]

Sorry to have to play this card amigo, but I wrote a book about foreign policy.

That doesn't mean you know anything. Just out of curiosity, what was the name of the book? If you don't want to offer that, what was the central thesis of the text?

 

[maxiep]

Read his quote. He said "personally" - meaning, what Carter did after leaving the White House. There is a strong argument that he is the most successful ex-president ever.

You'll get no argument from me about his good works post-presidency. I've worked with HFH since the early 90s. He's a good man who was simply over his head as CIC. I don't know if he's the best of all time, but he's repaired much of his image by his good works.

 

[toutlaw25]

What I dont get about posting here is why we can't disagree without being disagreeable. Why, when someone has a different take, they must be stupid or ill informed. Why can't they just come to a reasonable different conclusion?

Easy, if you take a specific position on a subject, you should have some type of facts or knowledge to support your argument. You linked your argument to an article that was vague, and talked about the possibility of attacks or hijackings. You seem to think this shows Bush or the intelligence community knew about 9/11 before it happened. As you know, since you're a decorated writer with intimate knowledge on foreign policy, the public does not know the full context of the information to include the credibility of the sources at the time the information was reported, and sporadic intelligence makes it difficult to implement meaningful preventive measures. Spare us the "I wrote a book on it" next time, and your argument could be more interesting.