I love how you choose the least important one to focus on... so I guess you agree he ignored two genocides then? Yeah, amazing president! So, are you saying he didn't choose to bomb Iraq only after the Lewinsky scandal came along? Just bad timing I suppose? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/stories/prez022298.htm
compassionate conservative. flip flop. the list goes on. im sure its your side which needs slogans. especially since our side has the more educated.
Even if he was offered Bin Laden, we do not know the true details. Perhaps they wanted specific intel the was classified in exchange? We really don't know. Sure, if he was capture, it would have made a huge difference in history, but hindsight is 20/20. He made a bad decision. Move on. Now to use such quotes to bring down a president such as "He has proved to be incompetent in affairs domestic (New Orleans)" and "e has sacrificed American employment (including the toleration of pension and benefit elimination) to increase overall productivity" shows the complete ignorance in the writers opinion. I stand behind any president of the US, as long has he's trying to do the right job... even if hes screwing the intern. As a conservative, I could find much better reasons than listed here. This article is a steaming pile of crap written by an ignorant liberal.
From the article that started this thread: I have talked with three significant historians in the past few months who would not say it in public, but who are saying privately that Bush will be remembered as the worst of the presidents. There are some numbers. The History News Network at George Mason University has just polled historians informally on the Bush record. Four hundred and fifteen, about a third of those contacted, answered -- maybe they were all crazed liberals -- making the project as unofficial as it was interesting. These were the results: 338 said they believed Bush was failing, while 77 said he was succeeding. Fifty said they thought he was the worst president ever. Worse than Buchanan. Please connect the dots. Good luck!!!
Don't know about Iraq or Osama, but I totally agree about Rwanda. If there's one totally inexcusable decision in the Clinton years, it was letting that go down. If only Somalia hadn't gone so poorly before...
The modern presidents are soft compared to some of the older guys. Warren G. Harding bet and lost all of the White House China in a single card game. That strikes me as an all time low that no modern president can match. Add to that the fact that even he aknowledged that he was "in over his head" as president and his numerous (unproven) background issues (he may have been a KKK member) and Harding is the master of Presidental ineptitude. Andrew Jackson closed the Bank of The United States in violation of federal law because he felt that the people who favored it were his personal enemes. In fact, Jackson in many ways magnified many of the issues that people have with GWB. At times he was extremely popular because he appeared to be a "decisive" president, but these "decisive moments" were not sound legal decisions and would be viewed in a much harsher light by history. FDR decided that because the supreme court wasn't favorable to his views he could simply expand it and add friendly justices to alter it's viewpoint. John Quincy Adams had the Corrupt Bargan which in comparison leaves Cathrine Harris, "hanging chads", and the state of Florida smelling like a rose. His father, John Adams, pushed for and passed the Alien and Sedition Act which essentially said that [rquoter] Under the Sedition Act, anyone "opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States" could be imprisoned for up to two years. It was also illegal to "write, print, utter, or publish" anything critical the president or Congress. (It was notable that the Act did not prohibit criticism of the Vice-president. Jefferson held the office of Vice-president at the time the Act was passed.) [/rquoter] In other words made it a crime to oppose the president's will. GWB has nothing on these guys.
What happen in Somalia was bad but no one is doing a thing about what has happen in the congo over the last 2 to 3 years.
How many times must the "Osama on a Silver Platter" story be dubunked before you guys accept it? Even the 9/11 Commission looked into this claim and still said there was no credible evidence. As the story goes, it happened in 1996. At this time, Bin Laden had not been connected to any american deaths, so he wasn't exactly sitting at the top of the most wanted list for the US. Still, the Clinton White House persued the leads. The guy who claimed to be representing Sudan was Mansoor Ijaz, a business man. If you don't know this guy, look him up at Fox News or National Review Online, he's a regular contributor to both. Anyways, the Clinton White House tried to get in contact with the Sudanese govt and every time it led to nothing. Ijaz said that the deal would be for the US to lift sanctions off of Sudan, a state that sponors terror, and in return, Osama would be handed over to Saudi Arabia. The Saudis didn't even want him, so who knows how that part of the equation would have worked out. Anyways, why would some independent guy claim to be working on behalf of the Sudanese govt? See, Ijaz is a business man who had interests in Sudan. Interests that would benefit from the lifting of US sanctions. So the truth is that some guy tried to trick the US so that he could make some $$$$. It didn't work out, so now he bashes Clinton constantly on Fox News, the end. BTW, why does this story get so much run from right wingers, but the extremely factual ignoring of the "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" memo is completely forgotten. As for Bush, I don't know if he's the worst ever, but he's easily the worst of this millenium.
I saw bush try to answer a question today...'What will you do to help the American hostage'. The response started ok...'We don't negotiate with terrorists'... ...then rambled and rambled on and on...how he will continue to pursue democracy, and how sadaam is standing trial. I bet that American would be happy to hear about us pursuing democracy. He may or may not be the worst, but I hope that we never see another one as dumb.
But did he lie about the reasons for any of those? I find it hard to believe you would bring up operation Desert Fox as a lie when so many war supporters cite that as an example of widespread support for removal of Saddam.
BTW, Buchannon was by no means definately gay. This is like people saying that Thomas Jefferson has Arsperger's syndrome; it's an after-the-fact reconstruction based on incomplete historical evidence. Furthermore, I find it interesting that you use supposed "gayness" as the definitave reason that he was a bad president, not any anything he actually did or didn't do in office. If he was bad because he was gay, that must mean that Clinton was the best ever, 'cause we have definitive physical evidence that he was heterosexual, right?
It sad how little historical context most people have. I remember debating someone here who insisted that GW Bush has faced the most challenges of any President, even more than Lincoln or FDR. I guess the US educational system really is going downhill. Just as a matter of historical context for the poster who brought up character. If that means someone who is strong and morally upright not many of our President's would meet that standard including the ones who are considered are greatest. Lincoln was chronically depressed, Jefferson was a hypocrite and a philanderer, FDR had no respect for the separation of powers and possibly knew ahead of time and did nothing about Pearl Harbor, Andrew Jackson was a racist and a bully, we aknow about JFK's affairs but good old Ike kept a mistress even George Washington wouldn't hesitate to toss poor squatters off of remote parts of his land
