Is Bush the Worst President of the Past 50 Years?Follow

Fixified.

Nope, Carter was.

If for nothing else, I think he'll be condemned, and condemned badly, in history books for invading Iraq, and for his treatment of prisoners of war and terrorist suspects.

There's precious little good in Bush's two terms that will be visible from the overwhelming shadow of the bad. George Bush is not Abraham Lincoln.

Im guessing when history is written he'll be the name associated with the Iraq war, which will mean no more to most except it followed 9-11 and ended the evil Saddam's reign of terror.

No Child Left Behind has produced numbers that support it's success (higher test scores on standardized tests). How much the numbers actually translate to a successfully edumacated America will likely never be discovered.

I honestly don't think history will be that hard on Bush. He left no ***-stained green dresses lying around the white house and happened to be President when the Country suffered it's worst hostile act, on it's home turf, in history. He'll get credit for seeing us through 9-11.

My prediction is that the most significant issue for future generations will be the massive debt incurred.

Unlike the war (which Bush misled the public into) the minority who voted for Bush were as informed as possible of what his tax cuts would do for them in the short run and their descendants in the long run.

Well. The first depends on how the Iraq war ends up being viewed in the future. It's not out of the realm of possibility that in 20-30 years, Iraq will be viewed as a huge success and the absolute "right decision". Which reduces the negative impact of three out of the four things I listed as negatives and replaces them with a huge positive. The lesson of Lincoln applies here. The Civil war was viewed as an illegal war at the time, in violation of the Constitution and States Rights. The Emancipation Proclamation was also viewed as illegal, a stretch of executive power and a violation of Supreme Court decisions on the subject (ergo, also a violation of the Constitution). Lincoln also aggressively suppressed the Press during his term, in ways that far far outstrip the worst suspected aspects of the Patriot Act under Bush. Yet, those were all connected to an action (Civil War) which today is overwhelmingly viewed as the right thing to have done. History therefore views all the actions he took in the course of accomplishing that in a much more positive light than they were at the time.

Take that away and you have essentially the economy as the only major thing laid out on Bush's presidency. Katrina is in there as well, but I suspect it'll be a minor footnote as the initial emotions of the event fade away. Heck. It's already almost a non-issue just a few years later, occasionally brought up as a "remember Katrina?" sort of news story.


In terms of positives, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars may very well be viewed that way (but not today). No Child Left Behind, while not monumental has shown far better results than most predicted. The economic recovery of 2002-2003 is pretty darn impressive too, and may provide historical backdrop for the economic problems we're facing today when viewed in the future. People may see how Bush responded to economic collapse of 2001 and compare it to the actions taken in 2008 (and 2009 under Obama) and see how when Bush's ideas were followed (ie: The tax cuts under Republican congress and president) the economy recovered, but when they weren't (Dem congress followed by Dem president), things went poorly. Of course, we don't yet know how this will go, so it's impossible to look at the results.

It's hard to count just single things though. Presidential terms are generally judged by trends and big events. I'm quite sure that Bush's terms will be overwhelmingly judged based on the long term success or failure in Iraq. Period.


To put this in context though. Name 5 positive things that Clinton will be remembered for. It's kinda hard to identify multiple defining things for any president. There's usually only one or two "big things", and for Bush the future judgment of those things are still in doubt.

See above.

Yup. And the ****'s were helped so much by the US entering WW2. And come to think of it, the Secessionists were so helped by Lincoln deciding to have a civil war instead of just letting them go.

Yes. Let us just assume that our enemies are always benefited by any military action we may choose to engage in regardless of why or how.

Anyone who thinks Katrina has been "all but forgotten" isn't paying attention.

No. If you had been around 50 years, you would understand that Carter is the worst President in 50 years. The current economic crisis is due mostly to ACORN or ACORN-like activists that pressured banks into making home loans to people that would not normally qualify for loans. It was a time bomb tick tick ticking away. Now we are starting to see the fruits of so much deception. People cannot pay their home loans, many of which they got by signing off paper work that grossly over stated their annual income.

So, stupid liberals convinced poor people they deserved loans and not to worry about a little thing like that they were LYING on documents about their income or ability to pay. Enough people can't pay and ruin their credit to the point where, as a nation, we are poor credit risks. Banks around the world get wind of this, and bam, suddenly there is a credit crisis.

In short, the liberals who encouraged poor people to lie, and forced banks to look the other way, are the the major source of the current economic crisis.

Carter, on the other hand, was stupid, stupid, stupid. Who remembers rationing of gasoline? everyone who could drive back then. Who remembers gas prices declining because of rationing? No one. The answer was always in supply and demand. Who remembers the hostages in Iran? 444 days. Who remembers the USS Cole? Iran and Carter, through his own weakness, painted targets on the US. For that, I will always say, Carter was the worst president EVER.

Yeah, the idea behind rationing is not to bring the price down, particularly when that is not under our control.

Can you understand why, and what the purpose really might have been?