Is Bush the worst President in recent time?

[Jessica]

Yes, he is

He went from wiskey frat to god dorm and says his name is mosesIIthereturn.

Nutcase

[madagas]

I don't think it's fair to judge any President until WELL AFTER their term has ended. We won't know how the Iraq mess turns out until years and years later. His presidency, in a larger historical perspective, will only be judged, in the end, by the results of this war. Thus, it may be 20 years before we will know. Right now, I would have to say he screwed up. But, it is really way to soon to tell.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

I don't think it's fair to judge any President until WELL AFTER their term has ended. We won't know how the Iraq mess turns out until years and years later. His presidency, in a larger historical perspective, will only be judged, in the end, by the results of this war. Thus, it may be 20 years before we will know. Right now, I would have to say he screwed up. But, it is really way to soon to tell.

Exactly, time will tell. t is still to early. If Bush pulls off a successful democratic Iraq he will go down as one of the great ones. If it blows up in his face & another theocracy takes power like in Iran, you could say he was one of the worst.

[Surfrider]

- i think bush was right to go into iraq.

I am not sure how you can make this argument in hindsight.  Of course, I don't think he could have went either way with the information he had.  I don't blame him for making that decision; however, I think in hindsight it is difficult to defend.

mistakes have been made and he must be held responsible.

Absolutely.  Wouldn't you agree that a big part of any war is being able to defend your policy and sell it to the people?  This President is completely unable to do this.  Probably the most ineffective communicating President I have seen in my lifetime.  That is probably an understatement.

but the long term plan there looks good.

What is that plan?  To train Iraqis to defend themselves?  I am not sure how much ground we are making on this.  I understand in theory the whole plan sounds good: create democracy in the middle east etc.; however, in reality the cost in achieving such a democracy may be too high.
 

and he got rid of one of the worst dictators in the world, who was a huge threat to U.S.

Sure he was an evil dictator.  However, I am not sure how you can make an argument that he was such a huge threat to the U.S.  How?

also, everyone agreed with his actions in afghanistan.

Fair enough.  Any President would have attacked Afghanistan.  Of course, everyone is going to agree on an action that occurs after the greatest attack on US soil. 

and his handling of the post-9/11 period was excellent.

In getting laws passed, and doing the right thing in attacking terrorism I will give him credit.  However, there are still many EASY things that can be done to fix vulnerabilities that he refuses to do: ie border security.

- he got almost everything he wanted in his first term. no child left behind was passed with tons of bi-partisan support.

OK, but just because he got everything he wanted doesn't mean they were all great things.  A lot of what he passed is pure pork.  The prescription drug bill was not good.  He has not vetoed one bill since he has been in office.

he also created several government agencies (post-9/11).

Not sure how a conservative can necessarily say this is a good thing.  In addition, the agency he created, Homeland Security, proved to be incompetent during Katrina.  Again, howver, I will give him credit for passing tough terrorism laws.

his low approval ratings have caused him major problems this year. we're in the middle of a war, which makes things difficult. but he knew what he was getting into, so he needs to do a better job with this. still, he but we're not even a quarter through his second term. give him some time.

We are in a war that is not going great, I agree.  Of course that is going to effect his ratings.  However, incompetence in Katrina, a horrible pick in Miers, and his inability to handle a press conference have hardly helped much either.

- i think he could have done a better job on Katrina. But i think the local government should be held more accountable than he.

Of course, the local government was incompetent, as I stated in my first post.  However, you can't point to someone more incompetent to justify or lessen the incompetence of the current administration.

- i wish he was more fiscally responsible. but he's been faced with some difficult circumstances (inheriting a recession, 9/11, etc.).

No doubt he has had it tough.  Yet, he has still failed to veto one bill.  As I stated before, if they would have been on Katrina from the start, we wouldn't be forced to spend 100 billion in the region, which is primarily pork.  Bush basically has to spend all of our money to prove that he actually does care, something that he wouldn't have had to do if he had been on top of things from the start.

i believe things would be worse if not for some of his economic policy (he ended the recession in about 8 months - shortest in U.S. history).

I agree 100%, his tax cuts helped the economy immensly.

- "offensive" choice for the SC??? strong words.

I think it is offensive on so many levels.  First of all, she is a crony, something the Federalist papers specifically warned the Senate to prevent.  Second of all, she is probably the least qualified candidate I have seen.  When asked about her qualifications they point to her time as head of the Dallas Bar, and her appointment to the lotter commission.   Furthermore, they say the fact that she didn't go to a top school is an attribute.  I am not saying that you have to go to Yale, but it certainly doesn't make her more qualified for not having attended Yale.  She has no history of any practice, writing, or thought on Constitutional law.  I think it was the biggest mistake of his presidency.  I hope she gets rejected.

i don't know enough about her. and i will wait until i learn more about her to pass judgement. his other choice was brilliant and i respect it alot.

Her qualifications are enough for me to reject her.  That, and the fact, that she is a crony.

- the borders need to be addressed. i don't understand why we do nothing about it. and bush needs to take ownership of this and include it as a key point in the fight against terrorism.

I don't know why he doesn't do this.  If we have another attack that comes from someone that got across the border, then all of the rest of the stuff he is doing will be for nothing.

[sandman]

Quote
- he got almost everything he wanted in his first term. no child left behind was passed with tons of bi-partisan support.
OK, but just because he got everything he wanted doesn't mean they were all great things.  A lot of what he passed is pure pork.  The prescription drug bill was not good.  He has not vetoed one bill since he has been in office.

i did not once say that all of his policies were great. you're original point was:

complete inability to sell his policies or his positions to the public

and that statement is flat out FALSE. because obviously there was public support for his policies if they all got passed (if there was no public support, politicians would not pass them).

you can't say any president would have invaded afghanistan. gore would not have. and the mission there has been a HUGE success.

i think katrina should have been handled primarily by local governments. i don't think the responsibility should fall on the president. therefore, i think he's getting a raw deal because of their incompetencies.

i wanted to invade iraq since the clinton administration. and to say you are fighting a war on terror and not go after iraq would be incompetent.

things do not look good there now, but back in the spring, many national magazines wrote articles that there were some strong signs that bush's long term plan could work there. and if it does, he'll go down as one of the all time gretest presidents.

[SLCPUNK]

i wanted to invade iraq since the clinton administration. and to say you are fighting a war on terror and not go after iraq would be incompetent.

Good thing, since Iraq was behind terror attacks in the USA and USA interests around the globe....

Oh wait...that was somebody else.

Well, at least we got those WMD.....

[sandman]

i wanted to invade iraq since the clinton administration. and to say you are fighting a war on terror and not go after iraq would be incompetent.

Good thing, since Iraq was behind terror attacks in the USA and USA interests around the globe....

Oh wait...that was somebody else.

Well, at least we got those WMD.....

you didn't see saddam as a threat. that's fine. i disagree. and ALL of my opinion is based on comments made by the democrats, and most importantly, bill clinton. i think he understood very well the threats in iraq. and i can't argue with how he handled them either.