George W. Bush: Worst President Ever?

Crossposted at Right Minds

 

Next Tuesday, Barack Obama will replace George Bush as president of the United States. Not surprisingly, given Bush’s approval ratings and Obama’s pop culture status, there is a lot of anticipation for the inauguration.

Many people are as eager to see Bush out as they are to see Obama in. Bush is not very popular, and has made his share of serious mistakes. And he’s not a very good communicator. Still, the hatred and disgust directed towards him by so many people is baffling. Bush might not have been a great president—but he is nowhere near the worst president in American history, as many firmly believe. (At least, so far. It takes at least two decades, and probably more, to get the full measure of a presidency).

Bush’s greatest failure is perceived to be the Iraq War. The wisdom of going into Iraq is certainly debatable—Saddam Hussein didn’t have weapons of mass destruction, and even if he had he simply wasn’t a real threat to America. And Bush mishandled the war—he stuck to his original strategy long after it was clear to nearly everyone else that is wasn’t working. The Iraq War, even if our present success in Iraq continues, will probably be seen as a mistake by future generations.

But not that big a mistake; certainly not large enough to tar a president with the “worst ever” label. The truth is that the Iraq War simply wasn’t that big or important a war. Four thousand American troops have died over nearly seven years. During the Vietnam War, that many men could be lost in a month. And had Bush not embraced the surge and America was forced to withdraw in defeat, the consequences would have been unpleasant (it would have emboldened Muslims around the world), but not that unpleasant—the vast majority of Americans would never have been touched by them. The Iraq War was, perhaps, a mistake—but a relatively minor one.

Another criticism of Bush that is supposed to relegate him to lower echelon of presidents is the alleged loss of U.S. standing around the globe. (Obama is supposed to be the cure for this). It’s true; the U.S. has lost prestige—except in France, which now has a pro-American Prime Minister, and England, whose Prime Minister supported (and supports) the Iraq War (and while Gordon Brown is unpopular, David Cameron, who is probably be the next PM, also supports the Iraq War), and Germany, with pro-American Angela Merkel, and Israel, Kuwait, and Albania, where they love Bush and America, and…really, most of the world doesn’t seem to have much animosity towards America. That seems to be one of those memes which occasionally rise without any real backing in truth.

If one is looking for the worst presidents in American history, it would be wise to look at other presidents than Bush. James Buchanan, for example, did nothing as the Confederate states seceded from the Union, making Abraham Lincoln’s task of fighting the Civil War much harder. Ulysses S. Grant’s Administration was plagued with corruption, and mishandled Reconstruction far worse than Bush mishandled the aftermath of the fall of Saddam Hussien. Warren Harding’s administration was woefully corrupt, and Harding was dreadfully incompetent. Franklin Roosevelt’s policies may have (actually, it would probably be safe to assert they did) lengthen the Great Depression, and it was only the fortuitous (at least for Roosevelt’s legacy) outbreak of World War II that saved him from being remembered as a disaster. Lyndon Johnson escalated the Vietnam War and bore responsibility for tens of thousands of American dead. Richard Nixon was a lying crook. Jimmy Carter’s domestic and foreign policies were failures. But since George Bush botched some penny-ante war in the Middle East, he’s one of our worst presidents? To say so is simply politically and historically illiterate.  

0
Your rating: None

Comments

Bush was not the worst President, but....

He may have been, especially in the second term, one of the worst communicators of his agenda we've had in a long while

I'll agree with that.

I'll agree with that.  It's like he just gave up at some point.  Ugh.

No question there.

No question there. Objectively, I realize that Bush can't be as dumb as his detractors claim he is--but I can see why people think so.

he's better at this politics thing than people think

he kept promising to "campaign vigorously" for anyone who didn't vote for that bailout.

dumb? no. violent? yes.

psychopath? probably not (that's Lieberman -- check him out, he acts just like Nixon!)

To understand Bush is to understand this anecdote: "So bush turned to his wife, and asked "How well do you think my speech went?" and she tepidly answered, "I think you could have done a bit better." At which point Bush put the car in reverse and drove through the back of his garage.

nevertheless, I don't think Bush is half the hothead that McCain is.

story

That is an interesting story.  Did it come to you in a dream last night?

The interwebs. Full of tidbits for the reality-based community.

whitehouse.gov

It's like the time -- she tells the story about the time when I was running for Congress in 1978 in West Texas, and she criticized one of my speeches. And I ran into the garage door. (Laughter.)

 

critical thinking

Oh, I see how this goes now.  So we have the members of the left-blogosphere, who already thinks Bush is some sort of Neanderthal moron, who already thinks Bush is an evil warmongering bitter angry fascist Nazi for perpetrating an illegal immoral unjust inexcusable imperialist racist war in Iraq against brown people for nothing but oil and riches, and then they get hold of this single line from a 2006 commencement speech where he's making fun of himself, and the natural conclusion from this 'reality-based community' is that it confirms their stereotypical view of Bush that he's a raging lunatic.  So now a "trusted user" from Daily Kos comes here to the next RIGHT and tries to convince us of the same?  And then we have a friend of a friend who works on some super-secret hush-hush project who allegedly has pictures of Bush in a moment of rage punching someone over a rugby game, and since no such pictures have emerged (yet) of Obama acting in a violent manner, we are supposed to conclude...what? That Obama isn't a violent man?  That he's not capable of raising a hand in anger?  And let's not question if these pictures even exist or not.  Or even if it matters.  Because it doesn't matter if they exist or not because Bush is just a violent man anyway, right?

This is critical thinking at its highest, folks.  I defer to the profound wisdom of the 'reality-based community'.

You were clearly accusing the commenter of fabrication

You were clearly accusing the commenter of fabrication, and I was pointing out that you were wrong.  Facts are stubborn things. Or stupid things, as Ronnie once said. You can look that one up, too.

I don't think that bush is evil.

Cheney, I have a few more questions about. But I do not think he is the most evil person in Washington, let alone the world!

In terms that you might hope to understand: Never Again. The ethnic cleansing and genocide that has occurred in Iraq under America's watchful eye is an outrage, and if you expect me or any other red-blooded jew to not be upset -- think again, sucker.

Nevertheless, I did not mention the Iraq war. Nor is it really germane to the discussion. Nixon, despite being a psychopath, was a very competent person. Hell, I'd rather have Nixon than Bush, any day of the week. See, Bush and company are DUMB. And a dumb friend is a lot more dangerous than a Smart Enemy. Smart enemies are predictable, and don't do stupid things. Therefore, their behavior is based on what cards each side has.

I will say this about the Bush Administration, and not about Bush himself: The fact that a manufactured terrorist attack was something that they needed to be maneuvered out of doing, does not speak very well of them.

Pish. If you don't want to believe me, just say so. I'll let that part of my argument drop, as it fundamentally rests on "I believe."

Also, pish, just because I won't bother asking why he was pulling the pics on Bush doesn't mean he is actually working for the CIA. For all I know, the intel is on sale to the highest bidder.

oh, and as to that pic -- i don't know if this is the one he was referring to, but...

http://www.rubyan.com/politics/archives/bush-rugby.gif

http://politicalhumor.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.t...

looks like i had my facts somewhat off. illegal, yes, after time was called, no. mea culpa

thank nando for the link.

A friend of mine does the type of psychological analysis that the CIA and FBI use to profile gov't leaders (don't ask me who he's working for, he contracts out. so it might be the cia for all I care).

He's got pictures of Bush, inarticulate with rage, punching someone after time was called during a rugby match.

Can you find me such a picture of Obama, at any point in time?

Not even close

I would estimate he'll be considered a fair president and wholly right on the war effort.

But that is only a feeling. After all, no REAL historian would claim to know how a president will finally be judged by history. It takes decades to assess the actions of a president. It takes decades to see what he did and what results from what he did.

Any historian that claims they know for sure how Bush will be seen in 50 years, 100 years is an idiot, a liar, or so hopelessly leftist that their judgment should be seriously questioned (and IF a leftist confirms the first two).

It does not seem likely, though, that Bush will be judged as bad as Carter and James Buchanan was, or as inconsequential as Franklin Pierce was.

In your attempt to downplay the Iraq war

You want so badly to downplay the Iraq War that you are missing a few things:

First, it was a war he chose, not one that was forced upon him. Saddam Hussein had no WMD, there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11 -  he just wanted his war in Iraq.

Second, going into Iraq took resources away from Afghanistan, which is where the REAL threat to our country was hiding.

Third, in order to get to approve for the war, he LIED TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

Fourth, he completely mismanaged the war. Remember "Mission Accomplished"? Remember "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." How many YEARS ago was that?

Fifth, costs of maintaining a US presence in Iraq is about $435 million a day -- $3 billion a week, or $12 billion a month. We've already paid $500 billion in axpayer dollars into Iraq. Interest payments add another $615 billion, and the price tag of repairing a depleted military is projected at $280 billion. Iraq will ultimately cost the Treasury  $3 trillion.

Sixth, the war has destroyed out standing in the eyes of the world (your dubious list of foreigners not withstanding).

The Iraq war was folly of the first order. There were plenty of other screw-ups in this adminstration - but on the basis of this war alone Bush gets my vote as Worst. President. Ever.

 

 

Bruce Bartlett was on C-span

Bruce Bartlett was on C-span this morning 16 Jan. 09. He was the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Reagan and Bush 41.

And he said "Bush is the worse republican president." 

yeah, I'd have to very cautiously agree.

He has been less effective than Hoover with the economy. Hoover at least had laissez faire principles (as fdr did, I might add), but he had one hell of a stubborn streak. With Bush, he has let the foxes guard the henhouse (thank you King Henry) -- and done other stupid things, like banning short selling for everyone except Madoff.

Harding gets a much worse rap than he deserves, fwiw. His coalition dissolved soon after he came into office, and he realized that he was more or less powerless to do anything. So he had fun.

But I think that the worst thing that Bush has done is advanced the doctrine of the Supreme Executive, where whatever the President wants to do cannot be illegal, no matter how many laws it breaks.

Iraq? Tiddlywinks!

Katrina? Devastating, but it could have been a lot worse.

Carter gets more credit than you might think, and his economic policies were better than his predecessor. (don't get me started on his foreign policy, though. i HATE idealists)

Bush is in the running for worst president ever.

And the lasting effects of his regime on the civil service will continue to haunt us for a long time.