Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You cannot make statements about how good or bad a president was until about 10 years after they are out of office. Many decisions don't have time to fully play out, so impact is still undetermined in many areas.
That didn't stop the Clinton haters, did it?
__________________
The price of anything is the amount of life you exchange for it. ~Henry David Thoreau
On the contrary, events on the ground will prove that "W" was right as well. The strategy is succeeded and there will be victory there, then the perspective will change. I don't see the Mid-Eastern streets ablaze with hatred for America - Saudi, Jordan, Egypt, Kuwait, Bahrain, Quatar, etc, etc, etc.
When were they ever in those countries?
Quote:
And who gives a rat's a** what a bunch of left-wing so-called historians have to say now, even before "W" has left office? I'm sure they would like to say he is a failure, but really, they are putting their credibility in question.
Hardly. They're professionals. They can stand up to the amateurish characterizations that you and other Dubyites throw their way. Disasters can be identified rather quickly. No need to give Bush/Cheney several decades to "rest on their laurels."
Quote:
And the economic numbers, up until recently, all very good - for those who have a little objectivity and don't carry around this all-consuming, intense hatred of "W".
The objective result of the W economic impact is unfolding before everyones' eyes even as I post this.
Quote:
btw, we already know what "bubba's" legacy is, don't we.
Clinton was no prince, either. He just looks good in comparison to the fool who followed him.
George W. Bush presidency was a great success for the far left, what are they complaining about? LOL.
Foreign wars and economic hard times are breeding ground for left wing recruitment.
Interesting comparison but it falls short in a couple aspects. 1. Even more than Vietnam, LBJ legacy was his wildly liberal "Great Society." Medicare, Medicaid, War on Poverty, etc. All things that sound good but that the voters have no desire to actually fund. Hence, the beginning of our never ending problem of national debt.
2. Vietnam but only to the extent that the US homeland had not just been attacked resulting in more deaths than Pearl Harbor, and the subsequent micro managed the US defeat.
Note that for Bush to reach exceptional status I did state that Iraq must be successfully resolved. Surrendering to al-Qaeda by any of the next potus would put a damper on his legacy.
"Surrender" to Al-Queda? You need to start getting your info from a source other than Fox.
Since you enjoy cracking up, consider this: 40 years after his term ended, LBJ is mostly remembered for one thing - screwing up Vietnam badly and mismanaging a war almost beyond belief. Time hasn't mellowed that perception that was very much at the forefront back in the 60s.
In LBJ's case, our involvement in Vietnam was at least thinly justifiable. S. Vietnam was a member of a mutual defense treaty (SEATO) and asked for US intervention in their civil war.
In contrast, Bush's trumped-up invasion of Iraq provided the conditions for Iraq's civil war to flourish.
Somehow, you seem to think Dubya's little misadventure will be more fondly remembered. Any particular reason you'd care to name?
yes, but at least LBJ had a ton of accomplishments on the domestic front incl: civil rights, medicare, fair housing, voting rights, environment, etc. what has w accomplished besides lying to the american public about a conflict that we have no business in, busting the budget, etc.
yes, but at least LBJ had a ton of accomplishments on the domestic front incl: civil rights, medicare, fair housing, voting rights, environment, etc. what has w accomplished besides lying to the american public about a conflict that we have no business in, busting the budget, etc.
Thus, even a bastard like LBJ will finish well ahead of Bush.
My college professors mostly said Grant was the worst ever.
I know many on the board don't like Bush, which is fine, but I think his incompetence is nothing compared to some past Presidents.
Who are some other all-time favorites for Worst President Ever and why?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Worst President Ever - Back to Topic
