home

Bush Exits

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 07:18:05 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

What is there left to say? Worst President in history.

Bush gave his "farewell address" tonight and I suppose it would be the time to be gracious but let's face it, the man deserves no grace.

Say your piece about Bush here.

Update (TL): David Corn on what Bush left out of his speech.

< Thursday Afternoon Open Thread | The Damage From the War on Drugs >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Bush Exits | 171 comments (171 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    No warning about the (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by eric on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 07:21:25 PM EST
    Military Industrial Complex.  Farewell speeches used to be better.

    That is where he gets his 15% approval rating (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 07:53:37 PM EST


    Parent
    In fairness... (none / 0) (#140)
    by kdog on Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 11:13:29 AM EST
    the military industrial complex is here and in full power, no sense warning of potentially spilled milked when the counter is already soaked eh?

    Parent
    I don't want to have a beer with him!!!!!! (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by mogal on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 07:21:52 PM EST


    Can we exile him to Elba? (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 07:24:46 PM EST


    Elba (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by weltec2 on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 07:30:01 PM EST
    is a beautiful place. No. I would much rather have him sharing a prison cell with Cheney.

    Parent
    St. Helena (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 07:30:40 PM EST


    Parent
    Mt. St. Helens? (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 07:51:51 PM EST
    I'd love to see him rain down as ash sometime int he near future.

    Parent
    Like Elba (none / 0) (#35)
    by weltec2 on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 07:56:36 PM EST
    St. Helena is an island, only its way off the coast of Africa.

    Parent
    I know what St Helena is (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 08:18:21 PM EST
    I was just suggesting a more satisfying alternative!

    Parent
    Space Station (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Fabian on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 08:22:21 PM EST
    to forever see the Earth but never to set foot on it again.

    Parent
    Apologies... (none / 0) (#70)
    by weltec2 on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 08:35:32 PM EST


    Parent
    Didn't mean to sound short (none / 0) (#76)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 08:51:24 PM EST
    Actually, I'd like to hear Bush read your description of St. Helena. He makes me laugh because he always says 'Africa' like he is reading a book to a child. I will miss that.

    Parent
    Much better (none / 0) (#91)
    by cal1942 on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 10:06:04 PM EST
    He escaped from Elba.

    Parent
    I'm just annoyed as all get out that (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 07:26:50 PM EST
    Bush pushed Ugly Betty off the air here in the east.

    He looked a little medicated to me, but I didn't really listen to what he had to say.

    That comment brings up memories. (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by ThatOneVoter on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 07:30:46 PM EST
     While I have little experience of my own with drugs, I have observed others on drugs quite a bit. One of the mysteries of the 2004 debates, to me, was how people could not comment on the obvious fact that Bush was on some drugs for at least 2 of them. It was an emperor has no clothes moment for me.

    Parent
    Practice, practice, practice (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Spamlet on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 08:49:24 PM EST
    One of the mysteries of the 2004 debates, to me, was how people could not comment on the obvious fact that Bush was on some drugs for at least 2 of them.

    That failure of reporting took long and assiduous practice in selective denial. By the time our media beheld Bush drugged to the gills, their denial had become a reflexive response to manifest truth.

    Parent

    When I turned on the TV (none / 0) (#99)
    by befuddledvoter on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 10:43:13 PM EST
    the top fo the screen said UGLY BETTY and there he was.  LOL  I have a converter box for digital and it always tells me what I am watching.

    Parent
    I shunned him (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by andgarden on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 07:30:08 PM EST


    PBS announced the address (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Fabian on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 08:28:43 PM EST
    and I promptly turned it off.

    I suffered through Bush and Cheney doing their "Who - us?" schtick and I'm not in the mood for more.  Especially Cheney's smarmy assurances that Obama would see the wisdom of "harsh interrogation practices" and other of Cheney's pet projects.  

    Gawd, I hope not.

    Parent

    Divorce? (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 07:33:43 PM EST
    Any bets? Now that he is going to commit the rest of his life to clearing brush and drinking, I can't imagine that Laura will stick around.

    BTW- As a parting shot to Roe v Wade, today Bush named Jan 19 as National Sanctity of Human Life Day, just in case anyone was wondering. Killing in Gaza on the other hand OK. It is a National holiday, Gaza is not covered.

    Don't flush the blastula down the toilet on the 19th.

    Now that Bush no longer (5.00 / 5) (#41)
    by weltec2 on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 08:06:37 PM EST
    has to pretend to be an outdoorsman, he is moving to a luxurious home in Dallas. As a result the entire area he is moving to has voted to become a gated community.

    The ranch? That was just Rovian theater.

    Parent

    I kNow (none / 0) (#69)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 08:34:53 PM EST
    But it is what he does best.

    For Bush, who is known to spend early-morning hours hacking at unwanted mesquite, cocklebur weeds, hanging limbs and underbrush only to go back for more after lunch, it borders on obsession.

    WaPo

    I will be surprised if he does not keep it up in some form or fashion.


    Parent

    Just to be snarky (none / 0) (#71)
    by abdiel on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 08:37:42 PM EST
    I look at the annual California wildfires and Bush might be on to something.  Californians might be better served with a little more brush clearing and a lot less kids playing with matches.

    Parent
    Laura Bush once said (none / 0) (#72)
    by weltec2 on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 08:40:16 PM EST
    that George's answer to any problem on the ranch was to take a chainsaw to it. She said she thought that was probably why he, Dick, and Donald got along so well.

    Parent
    lol (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 08:44:19 PM EST
    THat is obviously his approach to foreign policy as well..  not to mention domestic policy....

    Parent
    I think Laura is in (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 09:21:28 PM EST
    for the duration.  While I want to believe that she, as any sane person would take a hike, I fear that she is like him.  After watching W, the movie, my biggest question was what about her?  I got him, but what was her story?

    Parent
    OOps (none / 0) (#22)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 07:41:57 PM EST
    jan 19 is fine for killing blastula etc, Jan 18 is the new Bush new National holiday aka Eric Robert Rudolph Day.

    Parent
    No divorce (none / 0) (#77)
    by Spamlet on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 08:52:51 PM EST
    The Bush family is too cheap. Did you see the paltry alimony that Neil's ex-wife got?

    Then again, Laura does have a book deal. I hope it's a tell-all. That could set her up for financial independence.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#78)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 09:17:55 PM EST
    Maybe Laura's tell all book will get the same treatment as Sharon Bush's book did. Sharon was shrewd enough to come up with the idea because Neil was being a skinflint. I am sure that Neil got the book shelved for a pretty penny, or at least an acceptable amount of divorce cash to keep her quiet.

    Parent
    I think Neil was acting (none / 0) (#88)
    by Spamlet on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 09:52:27 PM EST
    on Barbara Bush's orders. But whatever gets Laura through the night, eh?

    Parent
    Buck Fush (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Dadler on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 07:36:36 PM EST
    May a few eggs come his way
    On inauguration day
    May so many people say
    Please just go away
    Bush Fush
    Buck Fush
    Buck Fush

    I try not to think too much (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by hairspray on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 07:37:14 PM EST
    about the anger that I feel about them.  It makes me want to do something for which I would be arrested.  When I bring up pictures of the lives that have been damaged by him here in the US to say nothing about the damages to other countries, I almost feel like crying.  Having worked in a Veteran's hospital, I know of what I speak.

    The damage is done (5.00 / 6) (#19)
    by eric on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 07:40:25 PM EST
    let's just not let anyone forget about it.

    Parent
    A worth while effort (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by cal1942 on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 10:16:06 PM EST
    for as lomg as we all draw breath.

    Bet that in the years to come right wingers will do all they can to revise history and place a halo over his head and expect lame pundits to blindly follow their lead.

    Parent

    Worst and worse (5.00 / 5) (#28)
    by lentinel on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 07:49:00 PM EST
    No doubt about Bush.
    Terrible.
    Awful.

    What is worse, however, is the fact that our media, from top to bottom went along with him.

    Worse than that, the congress went along with him - and is still going along with him.

    Worse than that, Kerry, the one hope to get rid of Bush in 2004, was afraid to confront him. How many more soldiers and civilians died as a result?

    Obama is not interested in seeing that Bush and his allies are brought to justice, or at least the nature of their criminal behavior brought to general public awareness. Their crimes will go unpunished. The Congress, the democratic congress, is not interested.

    So - yes. Bush is the worst President ever. (He has some competition - the President who gave the order to slaughter Native Americans - I can't remember his name) but no real argument.

    But he has company. The worst congress ever. The worst media ever. And I wish I had more hope for the incoming administration than I do now.

    Helen Thomas had great insight (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by Saul on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 08:04:28 PM EST
    She is the one that is responsible for coining the phrase even before Bush invaded Iraq.

    Her statement was:

    "This is the worst president ever," she said. "He is the worst president in all of American history."

    and she knew them all I believe starting with Kennedy if I am correct.

    I remember one of the many (5.00 / 4) (#90)
    by weltec2 on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 10:02:10 PM EST
    times Helen Thomas was trying to call out the president -- I believe it was on torture, if memory serves -- and she turned around to the rest of the press corps and said, "Where is everybody?"

    Parent
    andrew johnson... (none / 0) (#55)
    by blogname on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 08:24:05 PM EST
    johnson helped ruin the country. what a bad replacement for nixon. he left it in worse shape than bush is...he was the absolute worst...although some might say buchanan...but people want to think in the present only...so bush is the worst, and obama is the greatest. hurray.

    Parent
    bush has done more long term (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by kenosharick on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 09:27:08 PM EST
    damage than any other president in history. He has also done more to ruin our standing in the world community of nations than anyone. BTW- Andrew Johnson replace Nixon? you need some help with your history. Andrew Johnson replaced Lincoln, and while he made a number of mistakes, he is a giant compared to bush. And how could Obama be the greatest when he has not even been nominated? If Obama is able to help steer us out of the horrible mess created by bush and company, then he will go down as one of the greatest.

    Parent
    sorry was drinking... (none / 0) (#128)
    by blogname on Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 01:39:05 AM EST
    i have no idea where the nixon thing came from. clearly i knew the history, given that i discussed johnson's derailment of reconstruction. i was having a vodka tonic at the time...that's the only explanation i can think of. :)

    Parent
    PS (3.50 / 2) (#129)
    by blogname on Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 01:43:05 AM EST
    i was being sarcastic when i said people want to say obama is the greatest...but it's interesting that you say bush did more longterm damage -- when he's not even out of office yet. shouldn't we evaluate that later? i also believe that helping to defeat reconstruction, giving southern aristocrats their power, and vetoing the first major civil rights legislation set back the nation much more than bush's efforts.  jim crow did not end until the sixties, and johnson was a part of that history of sustaining it.

    Parent
    Bush got off light (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Saul on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 08:12:36 PM EST
    and so did Cheney and all Bush's  cronies.

    One thing is to be misled by wrong intelligence another is to actually manufacture the intelligence to fit your situation  and then lie to the American people about it in order to justify a personal war.

    It is Bush and his cronies that are directly  responsible for sending  all those American soldiers
    in harms way and getting so many killed and injured.
    Such an unnecessary war.  N. Korea was a greater threat yet we negotiated with them to give up their evil ways.

    He should have been impeached.
    Good riddance

    o by the way saul (1.00 / 4) (#47)
    by democratssuckass on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 08:16:51 PM EST
    Do you know why america went to war with iraq? do you know why soldiers are dying out there? they are dying for a cause and thats to stop the spread of terrorism and liberate these pro terror middle eastern countries. You are disrespecting american people and soldiers by saying that it was a waste of time, and then crying about how unfair it is and sobbing like an idiot. Yes i feel the pain that the families who lost loved ones do. But they enlisted in the army for a cause that they believed in, and you just mucked it up.

    Parent
    You did not have to go to war (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by Saul on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 08:30:04 PM EST
    to accomplish this.   That is a fact. If you could accomplish the same thing you wanted in Iraq as we did in Korea without wasting one American life than Bush is a jerk for not trying to do that.

    Not one 911 terrorist was from Iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with 911. Nada zero

    There was no need to go to war with Iraq.
    The soldiers did not enlist to fight  unnecessary wars or to follow a stupid leader.  

    We all  feel the pain that is why I dislike Bush so much.  It was his personal war a war of choice and not one we needed be involved in.

    Parent

    I freely admit my BDS (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 08:15:53 PM EST
    I have hated him since I started watching him in campaign 2000, and I do not use the word 'hate' loosely.  I knew he was a big phoney, and dumb as a box of nails. I can't watch him on TV, except in Daily Show clips. He has done incalculable harm to this country and even though it will take years to repair, at least with him gone we can get started.

    I'm starting to get really excited about Tuesday.

    Just an aside on one of his many "most (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by wurman on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 08:18:07 PM EST
    irritating" self-congratulatory comments.  The all-time worst president of the USA, & one of the worst national leaders of a Western democracy in the history of the world (imagine a bottom 10 of incompetence), brags that he & his henchthugs kept us from being attacked again for the past 7 years.

    Fuggedabout da' foist year, hunh?

    Then, of course, Roosevelt + Truman kept us from being attacked again by the Japanese.

    I suppose a very long strong of presidents kept us from another Civil War.

    And my kid brother's elephant repellant has kept the pachyderms out of our hometown for nearly 40 years now.

    What's sort of, kind of, partially, pathetically funny is that George W. Bush has become a caricature of our generic, average national perception of a "president."  He's a cartoon.

    Too Little Too Late (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by MTSINAIMAMA on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 09:26:20 PM EST
    His farewell address should have been in 2001.

    I wept when Al Gore conceded (5.00 / 10) (#96)
    by lucky leftie on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 10:24:22 PM EST
    because I knew a Bush administration was bad news for our country.  But I can honestly say, Bush far exceeded my worst fears.  Never in my wildest dreams did I foresee how bad it would be.  

    My heart still aches when I see Al Gore, because I know this would be a different America if Gore had prevailed in 2000.  In those first four years, one thing kept me going-the thought that America would never make the same mistake a second time.  We did.  Why did it take so long for Americans to realize what he was?  

    The fact that I  had no hand in it is no consolation.  My kids haven't even entered the workforce yet, and they'll probably spend their productiive years paying off the mistakes of this administration.  I alternate between grief and rage.  Bush has been a disaster, in every way.  He and his favored constituents lined their pockets for eight years, the rest of us underwrote their excesses.   Good riddance.    

    Another missed opportunity (5.00 / 6) (#98)
    by Radiowalla on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 10:32:06 PM EST
    Once again, it was all about Him!  He said that the American people picked up and moved along after 9-11, but that he did not.

    NO.

    We did not move along.  We suffered and we looked for a way to participate, but you, Naked Emperor, told us to go shopping, to go travel.  We wanted to conserve energy, we wanted to strengthen our country, but you told us to toddle along and that you and Uncle Dick would take care of everything.

    Tonight you had a chance to invite the American people to unite behind the new president, to help him in his awesome new responsibilities.   You did not.  

    He's a miserable failure and tonight he failed once more.  

    He would have also allowed you (none / 0) (#164)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 08:33:49 AM EST
    to participate with your life.  He didn't ask for it is as much as he needed to because then people would have known without doubt his phoney war on terror was gutting our forces.  It is odd, but perhaps not considering that he is my son, but our little boy at 8 yrs old responded to the Army commercial that there is Strong and Then there's Army Strong by telling the television that There is Dead and Then there's Army Dead.

    Parent
    After all is said and done (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by befuddledvoter on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 10:44:06 PM EST
    people voted him in. They share in his legacy.

    Poor Bush turns himself into a victim.... (5.00 / 9) (#102)
    by jerry on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 10:45:44 PM EST
    Molly Ivins really had his number back in December 2003:

    In order to understand why George W. Bush doesn't get it, you have to take several strands of common Texas attitude, then add an impressive degree of class-based obliviousness. What you end up with is a guy who sees himself as a perfectly nice fellow -- and who is genuinely disconnected from the impact of his decisions on people.

    Even tonight he turned himself into a victim.  He runs for office, but in leaving office he wants us to feel sorry for him and acknowledge that he had to make tough decisions.  Ahh, poor George.  Like he didn't realize that was part of the job.

    And what's so tough anyway about always voting to screw the people and reward cronies?

    Bush has become Norma Desmond. (5.00 / 7) (#109)
    by nycdem on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 11:00:33 PM EST


    nycdem (5.00 / 0) (#111)
    by cal1942 on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 11:14:28 PM EST
    best comment so far.

    Parent
    Who is Max? (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by weltec2 on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 11:50:14 PM EST
    Karl Rove?

    Parent
    Couldn't watch. Couldn't listen. (5.00 / 5) (#127)
    by oldpro on Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 01:32:05 AM EST
    I cannot bear to see that fool nor to hear his voice.

    Despicable.

    I just caught a replay (none / 0) (#131)
    by nycstray on Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 01:50:12 AM EST
    I was on the phone when he invaded my TeeVee and I immediately launched into a rant. I had him on mute and switched over so I wouldn't have to see his face. Part of the rant was how insane he's been on his "good bye tour". I was wondering what planet or alternate reality he was hanging out in. After watching, I would say he's moved permanently.

    Parent
    I feel sorry for him... (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by kdog on Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 11:36:16 AM EST
    he was never really in charge, and he'll go down in history with all the blame, while Slick Dick Cheney and the gang kinda skate on the whole shady deal.

    Bush is kinda like Big Brother...a fictional character to draw the praise of the loyal followers and the scorn of the haters while the movers and shakers work under the radar.  A figurehead only.

    Dissenting perspective (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by blogname on Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 01:10:12 PM EST
    Well...the dissenting perspective does not challenge Bush's inadequacies.  They are too numerous to recount. But my dissenting perspective seeks to push liberals beyond the CONSERVATIVE = EVIL, LIBERAL = RIGHTEOUS discourse that shapes contemporary political discourse.

    Yes -- we liberals can claim a moral victory in many areas of politics, but liberals perform miserably on issues that greatly impede racial and ecnomic justice.  For example, liberal "blue states" -- those dominated by Democrats for decades -- have some of the worst records on educational inequality in the nation. Blue state schools tend to be more racially isolated and plauged by funding inequity than any other schools in the country. Bush did not cause this, as much of the inequity results from local education policy.  While (legitimate) debates about prosecuting torturers drown out other concerns, I hope Democrats pause to think about the profound inequality that exists in their own communities.

    Separate and Unequal Public Schools: "Liberal" Blue States Have Worse Records Than "Dixie"

    Btw A very intersting (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by jondee on Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 03:35:03 PM EST
    segment last night on the after effects on the Vietnamese of the barbaric dumping of millions of gallons of dioxin on the people, forests and fields for a decade or so during the war.

    Apparently, it would take a grandchild or two of his own born with flippers for that tight lipped, lying scum of a U.S Ambasador to admit that there just might've been some persistent toxic after effects for the next generation from Agent Orange.

    yes (2.33 / 3) (#48)
    by democratssuckass on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 08:18:04 PM EST
    yes hes dumb but at least he went to yale (even if he only got in because of his family) I mean if you went to community college or a low rate division one i wouldn't be calling him stupid

    dlfjsklfslfks (1.00 / 2) (#44)
    by democratssuckass on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 08:13:51 PM EST
    Bush will go down as a decent president. Jimmy Carter and Andrew jackson were the worst presidents ever. I'm sorry but i cannot stand all this far left wing wacko trash. I respect the opinions of fair democrats as our family used to be democrat. I thought obama wouldnt be that bad but by the people hes putting in his cabinet, i mean come on!!! SANJAY GUPTA AS SURGEON GENERAL??? LOL

    heh (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by andgarden on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 08:15:17 PM EST


    Parent
    Objects to Gupta? (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Fabian on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 08:32:26 PM EST
    Odd.  

    Why not Hillary Clinton?

    Parent

    Better (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by SOS on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 08:24:54 PM EST
    get used to it. It's going to be a long 8 years for you.

    Parent
    50,000 Americans dead (1.00 / 0) (#158)
    by Slado on Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 03:09:48 PM EST
    That is the legacy of JFK and LBJ in Vietnam.

    There will be no Iraq war memorial.

    Not to mention the countless civilians bombed, raped, murdered and napalmed.  If you don't believe me just ask John Kerry.

    A couple of terrorists are "tortured" and had their phone calls listened too (legal by the way) and you liberals would equate this to the actually killing that went on in Vietnam.

    This is the kind of thread that makes you guys hard to take seriously.

    Slado (5.00 / 3) (#160)
    by jondee on Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 03:22:10 PM EST
    How many people died directly or indirectly as a result of the chaos created by the invasion and occupation? We wont even get into the number permanantly disabled, traumatized and displaced.

    What, this is nothing to quibble or be concerned about?

    This is not even touching all the contractor overcharging, outright thievery and "missing" billions that occurred.

    Also, vis a vis Vietnam, the idea is to learn something from historical mistakes, not keep repeating them in slightly different forms.

    Parent

    How can you seriously (none / 0) (#5)
    by Slado on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 07:29:25 PM EST
    claim worst president ever?

    There are many more who should move in line ahead of Bush no matter your political stripes.

    You don't like Bush.  We get it but "Worst President Ever" just shows you're blinded by Bush hatred.

    Worst President of the 21st centruy?  I could buy that.

    I do not even think it is close (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 07:30:22 PM EST
    Hoover is competitive I suppose but the Iraq Debacle breaks it wide open.

    Parent
    Hoover was in office (none / 0) (#26)
    by weltec2 on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 07:45:49 PM EST
    for less than a year when the crash happened. It wasn't his fault. True, he was inept as a president. But he did not start any wars or torture anyone.

    Parent
    I suppose you have a list (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by eric on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 07:35:39 PM EST
    of worse Presidents?  I am sure many of us won't agree, but who do you view as worse than Bush?

    Parent
    Harry Truman was arguably worse, (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by andgarden on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 07:40:26 PM EST
    and for only one reason: using the bomb. I know BTD doesn't agree, but I don't think that was necessarily the right call.

    Of course, there are a lot of reasons to like Truman. I can't even make a list of the things that Bush did that I like.

    Parent

    This argument to denigrate Truman (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by kenosharick on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 09:35:32 PM EST
    makes little sense. It insists on taking current thinking and attitudes about nuclear weapons and foisting them on an American society and president in the midst of a world war. He was a hero for using it in the eyes of the troops. They were looking at a Japanese land invasion that would have cost tens of thousands more American lives.

    Parent
    They had a pretty good idea (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by andgarden on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 09:43:46 PM EST
    of what the nukes could do after the Alamogordo test. And as for the land invasion and potential loss of American life. . .it's debatable whether that would have otherwise been necessary. There is some indication that the Japanese may have been prepared to surrender. Gar Alperovitz has argued that bombing of Hiroshima was the first act of the cold war.

    It's. . .complicated. I'm not prepared to condemn Truman, but if he really had viable alternatives, he made a monstrous choice.

    Parent

    Anyone making (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by cal1942 on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 10:46:19 PM EST
    an argument that Japan was on the verge of surrendering before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima is poorly informed.  Japan was only willing to cease hostilities if they got off scot free. One little tidbit: The Japanese war cabinet did not even bother to meet until THREE days AFTER the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima.

    I suggest you read Downfall by Richard Frank.

    Parent

    Japanese willingness to surrender (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by andgarden on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 10:53:02 PM EST
    is a matter under dispute. There IS some evidence that there were trying to work out a deal with the Soviets.


    Parent
    There is no dispute (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by cal1942 on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 11:57:24 PM EST
    unless there is an ax to grind.

    The Japanese were trying to use the Soviets as intermediary (at the time the Soviets were neutral) to gain a cease of hostilities on their terms.  Their terms included: Japanese would decide any war crimes charges, Japan's armed forces would be completely under Japanese control, no occupation of Japan, current military government to retain control of Japan, the emperor remains on the throne with all powers intact. As I recall nothing was said about territories occupied by Japan.  There was no offer to surrender only an offer to cease hostilities. They indicated to the Soviets that there was no way that Japan would surrender unconditionally.

    People who claim that Japan was on the verge of surrender either haven't examined the terms or have an ax to grind and don't really care about the critical details. Those who claim that Japan could have been defeated without dropping the bomb are correct. But the people who try to advance that point never want to consider the incredible cost in lives, both Japanese and American. There also is no consideration given to the fact that a prolonged war with Japan would have meant a significant portion of Japan would have been occupied by the Soviets. Japan would have been divided much as Germany was divided after the war. Prolonging the war would have meant starvation for massive numbers of Japanese.

    There is another factor that detractors always want to ignore and that's the domestic political consequences. What do you suppose the reaction of the American people would have been if, after the war, they learned that the US had a weapon that could have ended the conflict without the massive loss of American lives but refused to use that weapon because it would have killed many Japanese?

    No democratically elected government (of either party) could ever make such a decision. Can you imagine how people, who had already suffered over a million casualties (approx. 300,000 killed, three times that many wounded) would have reacted? Truman's objective was to end the war as soon as possible and to minimize American casualties. That's what we expect of our Presidents.

    It's very easy to sit back today and lament the use of a terrible weapon.  Quite another to have faced the situation after years of bloody war.

    Parent

    I don't have an axe to grind (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by andgarden on Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 12:05:07 AM EST
    I'm just not convinced that there weren't alternatives.

    Those who claim that Japan could have been defeated without dropping the bomb are correct. But the people who try to advance that point never want to consider the incredible cost in lives, both Japanese and American.

    Suppose that's correct? What about the middle alternatives? (e.g., dropping a bomb in Tokyo bay as a demonstration, or actually negotiating a surrender).

    As for the rest of what you say, I find it far too focused on the politics, given how many people were incinerated by the bomb. In particular, the idea that we had to do it or the USSR might occupy part of Japan makes me a little sick to my stomach.


    Parent

    I have no idea what (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 12:16:04 AM EST
    "an axe to grind" would even look like in this context.

    Andgarden, your point is pretty much in-agurable: there were alternative options for demonstrating the power of a nuclear bomb - short of dropping one each on two densely populated cities.

    Parent

    Alternatives! (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by cal1942 on Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 09:40:39 AM EST
    Suppose that's correct? What about the middle alternatives? (e.g., dropping a bomb in Tokyo bay as a demonstration, or actually negotiating a surrender).

    The specific demonstration you suggest, dropping a bomb in Tokyo Bay, would have meant significant deadly fallout in Tokyo unless the winds were 'right.' But the Japanese thought we had only one bomb. After Hiroshima, General Anami guaranteed the War Cabinet that we had only one bomb. So what do you propose we do to convince them that we had additional capability? For that matter what would such a demonstration in the ocean have really proven without seeing real destruction. At the time we had only enough fissle material for two bombs. Was it worth the risk to waste one with the possiblity that the Japanese government would be unmoved as they seemed to be even after Hiroshima? Remember the Japanese government didn't even bother to meet until three days after Hiroshima.

    And what surrender are you talking about?  The Japanese had already rejected the idea of surrender. Their only offer was to cease hostilities. What were we to do, leave the Japanese in control of the occupied nations?  Allow the Japanese government to remain intact risking the possibility of a future war? Give the Japanese adequate time to finish their own nuclear weapons development?  You think the Japanese would have hesitated to use nuclear weapons, a nation that sent out waves of Kamikazes? You say that the politcal considerations to limit Soviet expansion into mainland Japan make you sick given the deaths of 160,000 Japanese.  The brief Soviet involvement in the Pacific theater yielded the disappearing of 400,000 Japanese. You think that there would not have been many more disappeared Japanese if the Soviets had occupied the northern half of Japan?

    And this political consideration you didn't care to address: What would YOU have felt in 1945/46 if your brother, father or husband were killed in the invasion of Japan and then discovered that we had a weapon that could have possibly ended the war before your loved one was killed, but failed to use it because it would have killed too many Japanese? Put yourself in the summer of 1945.  You are basing your revulsion on what we know today, generations after a bloody war, long after the dust has settled and passions cooled.

    I guess it makes me sick to my stomach that anyone would make an outright condemnation of an American president because of a decision to end a bloody war as soon as possible with as little cost in lives as possible.

    An earlier commenter suggested that the long term ramifications of a nuclear bomb were well known to all principles concerned. They were not. General Marshall, after learning of the intel that revealed the massive buildup of Japanese forces on Kyushu, wanted to use the eight bombs that the Manhattan project promised by November 1st to bomb the landing beaches. Sending American forces on to beaches that had been bombed would have condemned both the Japanese in that area of Kyushu and invading American forces as well.  The ramificatiions of nuclear fallout were NOT known. Practices with personnel during nuclear testing in the forties and fifties pretty much reveal that even after Hiroshima and Nagasaki the full and complete dangers of nuclear after effects were little understood.

    Using today's technical knowledge to judge past decisions is quite amazing, the smugness of it all makes me a little sick.


    Parent

    Look, (none / 0) (#139)
    by andgarden on Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 09:49:28 AM EST
    it's possible that absolutely nothing other than exactly what was done could have brought the Japanese to surrender. It is generally impossible to prove a counterfactual. But "nothing else could have worked" is a pretty dire conclusion to make, given the result, and I don't share it.

    Parent
    And frankly, (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by andgarden on Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 12:07:13 AM EST
    the idea that there's "no dispute" is just wrong with regard to the current historical debate. It is not a settled matter, by far, among historians.

    Parent
    Other books on Hiroshima & Nagasaki (none / 0) (#113)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 11:18:03 PM EST
    See book list and descriptions HERE.

    Parent
    For the history, complete with footnotes. . . (none / 0) (#115)
    by andgarden on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 11:26:19 PM EST
    see here. (He has a view, of course, but I think my link above is pretty fair to the various other points of view).

    Parent
    I dont know what (none / 0) (#155)
    by jondee on Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 02:37:36 PM EST
    "got off scot free" means when you consider tthat they'd already lost 99% of their empire, lost hundreds of thousands of people and had cities practically reduced to cinders.

    Parent
    Most shocking thing I've heard about the A-bomb: (none / 0) (#92)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 10:06:12 PM EST
    The physicists who developed the A-bomb, and Truman himself, actually thought there was a possibility that the earth's atmosphere might catch fire upon the dropping of the Hiroshima bomb.

    Evidently, Truman et al, thought that was a risk worth taking. Absolute lunacy.

    Parent

    Oppenheimer was haunted by it (none / 0) (#93)
    by andgarden on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 10:09:57 PM EST
    for the rest of his life.

    Parent
    That was (none / 0) (#106)
    by cal1942 on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 10:49:36 PM EST
    a wager made in jest among some Manhattan project physicists.  The joke was that if the atmosphere was set ablaze how would the winner collect.

    Parent
    I have not heard it characterized (none / 0) (#110)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 11:09:58 PM EST
    as a "jest", cal1942. Where did you read that?

    It is my understanding that the physicists actually believed the earth's atmosphere might catch fire when the Atomic bomb was dropped.

    Are you saying that they didn't believe that? Or that they did believe it, but made a "wager" joke about it?

    Parent

    Really, it's a red herring (none / 0) (#112)
    by andgarden on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 11:14:37 PM EST
    Everyone at the top knew that it was quite a dangerous weapon.

    Parent
    I don't think the "red herring" (none / 0) (#116)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 11:35:59 PM EST
    is irrelevant in this context andgarden.

    We can read massive tomes till we're blue in the face and then a small, razor-sharp detail can bring it all into unmistakable focus.

    I'm just saying this: knowing the truth of that one detail can palpably and succinctly establish how Truman et al were catastrophically blinded by the "fog of war".

    Did they, or did they not, believe that they might obliterate the entire world in an attempt to win the war? It is my understanding that they did.

    Parent

    I think we have something better (none / 0) (#117)
    by andgarden on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 11:42:02 PM EST
    film of the Alamogordo test.

    Parent
    I've seen the film... (none / 0) (#122)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 12:05:52 AM EST
    good to link it nevertheless.

    Parent
    My take (none / 0) (#114)
    by cal1942 on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 11:19:53 PM EST
    has always been that it was the ultimate in  black humor.

    When you say "the physicists" I hope you're not implying that ALL the physicists believed that the atmosphere would burn, that simply was not the case.

    Parent

    Completely disagree. (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by cal1942 on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 10:24:20 PM EST
    Concerning Truman. Personally I rate Truman as near great.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 07:43:47 PM EST
    Yeah I disagree.

    Parent
    I had a (none / 0) (#25)
    by andgarden on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 07:45:44 PM EST
    pinko professor who  gave me pause about the whole thing.

    Parent
    I rather like (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 08:28:40 PM EST
    anyone that can make a sound argument on why Hiroshima was one of our greatest mistakes. I've always felt the same way, but have to admit Bush really has managed to do so many things wrong he has elevated himself to the top of the dung pile.

    Parent
    Outside of far-right circles... (none / 0) (#105)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 10:47:26 PM EST
    I don't believe I've ever been subjected to the argument that it was a good idea to drop a nuclear bomb (Little Boy) on Hiroshima; and another larger bomb (Fat Man) on Nagasaki, 3 days later. Little Boy had a blast equivalent of 13 kilotons of TNT and Fat Man had a 21 kiloton TNT blast equivalent. Then you have to factor in the 'collateral damage" from radiation poisoning.

    The bombs killed as many as 140,000 people in Hiroshima and 80,000 in Nagasaki by the end of 1945, roughly half on the days of the bombings. Since then, thousands more have died from injuries or illness attributed to exposure to radiation released by the bombs. In both cities, the overwhelming majority of the dead were civilians. (Wiki)

    No adequately informed, sane, rational human being with a normal measure of empathy could ever think any of that was a good or "necessary" idea.

     

    Parent

    Can you think (5.00 / 6) (#21)
    by weltec2 on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 07:41:29 PM EST
    of any other president in American history who has started an unprovoked war destabilizing an entire region? Katrina, the vetoing of healthcare for children, torture, warrentless wire tapping, the list just goes on and on. It's dizzying. His record has been reprehensible. Nixon stands as a paragon of virtue next to this guy.

    Parent
    History is not going to be kind (5.00 / 5) (#37)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 07:59:05 PM EST
    to Bush, or to the many members of his administration, especially when we learn the rest of what will be disclosed in the coming avalanche of post-Bush books that are in various stages of being written.

    In the full context that is yet to come, Bush will grab a firmer hold on "worst;" we can only hope that it is as low and as bad a standard as it will be possible to sink to, because a president and a presidency that is worse than Bush would probably herald the end.

    Parent

    Bush will have his place set in stone as the worst (none / 0) (#86)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 09:41:39 PM EST
    President if Obama is able to hopefully get us out of this economic mess.

    Parent
    You mean we're not there yet? (none / 0) (#89)
    by Spamlet on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 09:54:34 PM EST
    a president and a presidency that is worse than Bush would probably herald the end


    Parent
    Seriously, Slado (none / 0) (#11)
    by caseyOR on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 07:31:23 PM EST
    If not the worst president, then Bush is saved from that distinction only by James Buchanan.

    Parent
    Curious (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 07:32:45 PM EST
    Buchanan was President when Dred Scott was decided but he did not decide it.

    Bush is clearly worse than Buchanan imo.

    Parent

    Fiddling while the Union burned. (none / 0) (#30)
    by caseyOR on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 07:50:34 PM EST
    Both Buchanan and Bush d@mn near destroyed the nation. Buchanan cowered in the White House while the country disintegrated into civil war. Bush, well, we will be trying to save ourselves from the follies of Bush for decades to come.

    Parent
    Could anything have stopped the civil war (4.00 / 1) (#84)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 09:38:13 PM EST
    From actually happening.  The northern capitalists were tired of competing with slave labor, and the southern aristocracy didn't want to give up its slaves.

    Parent
    I don't think the north (none / 0) (#133)
    by Fabian on Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 05:23:53 AM EST
    was actually competing with the south.

    The north was embracing the industrial revolution while the south was largely agricultural.  The north was growing faster, both in terms of population and productivity.  If there was a competition, the north was winning.

    Parent

    The only Pennsylvania President. . . (none / 0) (#18)
    by andgarden on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 07:38:17 PM EST
    I think he's probably worse than Bush, if only because there was no Lincoln in him.

    Parent
    Pols are pols (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 07:44:47 PM EST
    Buchanan was par for the course.

    Lincoln could not have won in 1956 BTW. It took Dred Scott to create the climate for Lincoln.

    Parent

    Yes, (none / 0) (#27)
    by andgarden on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 07:48:35 PM EST
    I think he would have done worse than Adlai Stevenson! ;-)

    Parent
    I think Reagan's effect (none / 0) (#33)
    by ThatOneVoter on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 07:54:29 PM EST
    on the country was quite profound--negatively---as well. I'm not sure that Bush matters as much in the long run as Reagan.

    Parent
    Reagan made Bush possible (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 07:58:53 PM EST
    and I am certainly not going to be any kind of a Reagan apologist...but at least there was some level of skill there.

    Parent
    not on reagan's part. (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by ThatOneVoter on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 08:01:06 PM EST
    The difference between Reagan and Bush is that
    Reagan was the Pinocchio who was happy to be a puppet.

    Parent
    Hey, the man could read from a teleprompter (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 08:21:21 PM EST
    I'll give him that. Certainly better than Bush in that department, and in general grace and manners with foreign heads of state.

    And that is the only nice thing I am going to say about him.

    Parent

    Yes, Bush was the (5.00 / 4) (#104)
    by JamesTX on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 10:47:16 PM EST
    final chapter in the Reagan book. Many of us knew how it would end in 1980. It has ended, but the effects are not over. The judiciary is seriously poisoned. The big picture is changing. I don't think we will recover. At least now all those who wanted to have the beer with George will get to see themselves, and their children, face the consequences. Gosh, I hope it was good beer.

    Parent
    Who do you think was worse? (none / 0) (#34)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 07:55:54 PM EST
    I don't even think it is close.

    Parent
    Worse then Bush... (none / 0) (#145)
    by Slado on Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 01:07:27 PM EST
    LBJ and Jimmy Carter

    LBJ - Vietnam fiasco which makes Iraq look like a picnic.  He also had a major Hurricane on his watch bigger then Katrina and it took him much longer to clean up.

    Throw in his terrible Great Society and you have the ultimate bad president.

    What's so funny is LBJ presided and started a war that killed 10's of thousands of Americans and a liberal today can even compare Iraq and Katrina to that disaster.   And it was only 40 years ago.

    Case closed.

    Parent

    It is way too early to judge Bush (none / 0) (#101)
    by ericinatl on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 10:44:11 PM EST
    as the worst President ever.  These judgments can only made after history plays out to see their impact.

    In my opinion, he will not go down as the worst ever.  His administration's prompt response to the financial crisis assures that he will fair better than Hoover (and the Great Depression).  The surge assures that he will fair better than Johnson (and Vietnam).

    How Iraq and the current economic crisis play out over the next 4 to 5 years will truly determine how Bush is rated.  If the Middle East does stabilize with Iraq as a Western power base of democracy, then Bush could rise from a bad President to a mediocre President.  But he'll never be a great President.

    Parent

    Prompt response to (5.00 / 5) (#120)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 12:04:24 AM EST
    the financial crisis?  You've got to be kidding!  I don't know what went on behind the scenes, but Paulson didn't emerge with his hair on fire until the financial situation was so dire, we were in serious danger of total collapse within days.

    Since then, the approach has gone from the original TARP plan to direct bail-outs and now back to TARP again after all.

    I give them credit for finally abandoning their ideology on the brink of catastrophe, but that's not a plus, it's just not as negative as it might have been.

    As for the "surge" and the LBJ comparison, the Vietnam war was nothing but one surge after another for years, each time promising the "light at the end of the tunnel," until 50,000-some U.S. soldiers were dead and God knows how many Vietnamese and other Southeast Asians.  LBJ made a pig mess of Vietnam not because he didn't "surge" but because he kept "surging."

    The relative calm in Iraq owes far more to AQI's overreaching provoking the Sunni "awakening" and al Sadr's inexplicable withdrawl from the field of battle than the "surge" or anything else the U.S. has been doing.

    Yes, history will sort this out, I hope with less swallowing whole of administration propaganda.

    Parent

    I am curious what (none / 0) (#13)
    by ThatOneVoter on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 07:33:10 PM EST
    kind of post-presidential profile he will have.
    I think his innate laziness will lose out to his narcissism and he will make appearances and speeches.

    Yes, and Fox News (none / 0) (#29)
    by weltec2 on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 07:50:33 PM EST
    will actually cover them, and genuflect humbly before him, and turn him into an elder statesman. Shudder!

    Parent
    andrew johnson was worse... (none / 0) (#40)
    by blogname on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 08:06:13 PM EST
    sorry, but andrew johnson was worse than bush. he vetoed legislation to allow blacks to vote in dc, that would have given blacks all the rights the whites had, and he opposed the freedmen's bureau which provided food and shelter to the former slaves. he was a nut job....he did much worse than this, but these are just things off the top of my head....

    Bush would have done the same (none / 0) (#54)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 08:23:03 PM EST
    given the opportunity.

    Parent
    i thought we were working with what happened (none / 0) (#56)
    by blogname on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 08:24:39 PM EST
    not with speculation.

    Parent
    Right, sorry (none / 0) (#63)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 08:30:31 PM EST


    Parent
    you are putting our values on (none / 0) (#85)
    by kenosharick on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 09:40:59 PM EST
    mid-19th century America. Lincoln himself thought blacks were inferior and only reluctantly supported emancipation. I would like to know what your source is for all this negative "information" about Johnson.

    Parent
    Probably said (none / 0) (#43)
    by SOS on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 08:13:07 PM EST
    "thanks suckers" when he turned around and left at the end of the speech.

    Right... (none / 0) (#51)
    by jarober on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 08:20:51 PM EST
    Worse than James Buchanan, who fiddled for 5 months while the south seceded?  Not so much.  Worse than Woodrow Wilson, who shut down newspapers, jailed opposition figures, and set up a nation-wide network of informers?  Not so much.  

    Just like a lot of other modern critics, your ability to grasp that things actually happened before 2001 is lacking...

    Your ability (5.00 / 4) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 08:32:33 PM EST
    to grasp yhe magnitude of the disaster of the last 8 years has been manifest for, well, 8 years.

    Parent
    Inability that is (none / 0) (#66)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 08:32:50 PM EST


    Parent
    Hmmm (1.00 / 0) (#134)
    by jarober on Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 05:32:57 AM EST
    That's a nice non-answer to my comment - but then you don't actually have one, do you?  I'm not making any claims about the quality of Bush's presidency, btw - merely claiming that "worst ever", given some of the truly bad ones the US has had (Buchanan being one of, if not the, worst), is over the top.

    If you can explain how Bush was worse than Buchanan using actual facts, that might resemble a response.


    Parent

    Hope young people learned (none / 0) (#58)
    by SOS on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 08:26:04 PM EST
    something from this debacle. It's in your best interest to make sure another Bush never holds public office.

    but then they elected obama (1.00 / 0) (#67)
    by blogname on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 08:33:39 PM EST
    the man is too fake for my tastes....

    Parent
    I don't think Bush was mature enough (none / 0) (#59)
    by ding7777 on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 08:28:19 PM EST
    to understand that his actions had broad consequences - to him, Presidential power was exercised on an almost personal basis (Ken Lay, Valerie Plame, Terri Schiavo, Sadam Hussien, etc).

    Iraq is not a good basis for the label (none / 0) (#68)
    by abdiel on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 08:34:05 PM EST
    Not when the United States has a rich history of invading other countries for its own ends.  Lest we forget, we started the 20th century with unprovoked wars to seize control of Cuba, the Philippines, and the Panama Canal.  I don't remember the Vietnamese asking us for a fight either.  Or Laos, or Cambodia.  

    A sincere belief that the United States is inherently a peaceful country is very much a part of the American identity, but our history has hardly been unwarlike.  

    Hurricane Katrina, I'll hear the argument.  Bush has to wear that one.

    Bush Summed Up in Two Words (none / 0) (#73)
    by Doc Rock on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 08:42:49 PM EST
    Monstrous nebbish

    Hm... maybe schlemihl (none / 0) (#79)
    by weltec2 on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 09:21:02 PM EST
    There is a great degree of innocent ignorance of the way the world works in Bush. In The Quiet American Graham Greene writes that "innocence is like a dumb leper who has lost his bell, wandering the world, meaning no harm." I believe this fits Bush perfectly.

    Parent
    No terrorist attack in U.S. (none / 0) (#97)
    by Green26 on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 10:27:41 PM EST
    since 9/11.

    Isn't that an accomplishment? Did that just happen by luck or accident?

    Are you confident there won't be one in the next 4 or 8 years?

    Also (5.00 / 9) (#108)
    by Steve M on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 10:58:09 PM EST
    We haven't lost any cities since Katrina.  That's an accomplishment.

    Parent
    Hah! (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 12:06:42 AM EST
    Good one!

    Parent
    What about Galveston? (5.00 / 0) (#126)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 12:17:47 AM EST


    Parent
    OMG Obama's Preznit! (none / 0) (#130)
    by FreakyBeaky on Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 01:44:20 AM EST
    We're all gonna die!

    Parent
    Sadly (none / 0) (#144)
    by blueaura on Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 01:02:02 PM EST
    There is more than one way to destroy a country. How about provoking a war that drains much-needed resources from the country and divides the country against itself? Poor morale, a bad image across the world. An economy on life support. Civil liberties eroded. Hell, there's an argument to be made that the terrorists have damn near already won without the need for another "attack".

    How many Americans can say they are better off than they were 8 years ago?

    Parent

    ARe you describing LBJ (none / 0) (#148)
    by Slado on Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 01:12:24 PM EST
    or Bush?

    Just wondering?

    Parent

    By the way (none / 0) (#149)
    by Slado on Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 01:13:47 PM EST
    I am better off then I was 8 years ago and no matter who had been president I would have been better off because I've perfected my career and am compinsated for it.

    If i relied totally on the government for my existance then I'd probably admit that I was in some trouble.

    Liberals fascinate me.

    Parent

    Right (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by blueaura on Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 03:23:30 PM EST
    That's a disingenuous response and I'm quite sure you know it. As someone who has advanced to a different stage in my life in the last 8 years, in some ways I am better off. I graduated from college in Dec. 2000 and I certainly make more money now than I did then, but I define "better off" as more than just the size of my bank account.


    Parent
    In other words (none / 0) (#154)
    by jondee on Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 01:56:08 PM EST
    people who question the implications of making how-much-better-off-I-am the overriding determinate of what people should be concerned about, fascinate you.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#170)
    by Slado on Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 02:26:23 PM EST
    what fascinates me is the the belief that gov't is the most important factor in life.

    Obama will supposedly point this out tomorrow.   What I do for and to myself determines if I'm better off.   The government is only one of many, many factors that determines how I'm doing.   For one to even wonder aloud "Am I better off today" and consider it in terms of what the gov't has done for them is a serious character flaw.

    IMHO the government is likely to more adversly affect you then help you over the corse of a lifetime and anyone who puts too much faith in what the government can/will do for them is bound to be dissapointed.

    Here in lies the fascination.  The gov't has and will continue to let us down.  No matter who is running it.   Gov't and power corrupts all as government can only expand, not retract.   Gov't is a necessary evil IMHO and those who put so much faith in one version of it fascinate me because deep down they must know it will let them down.

    Parent

    A song for (none / 0) (#132)
    by Edger on Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 04:10:32 AM EST
    george.

    George W. Bush was a (none / 0) (#135)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 05:34:08 AM EST
    truly bad President.  But, was he worse than Nixon, or does China redeemd all the evil begot by Nixon?

    P.S.  Yesterday our bicycle rickshaw driver frequently exclaimed "Obama."  Hoping for a bigger tip?  What if we had voted for McCain?

    RIckshaw? (none / 0) (#142)
    by squeaky on Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 11:48:12 AM EST
    I thought you were going to India?

    Parent
    I''m there. Bicycle (none / 0) (#163)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 07:24:07 AM EST
    rickshaw.  

    Parent
    Wow (none / 0) (#166)
    by squeaky on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 12:43:26 PM EST
    Silly me, I thought rickshaws were from China. Oh well... too many charlie chan moves.

    How is the food?

    Parent

    Bicycle rickshaws (none / 0) (#167)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 11:10:55 AM EST
    are also omni-present in Vietnam and Cambodia.
    Food is wonderful.  My tolerance for hot and spicey is really low but--"no problem," as the Indian driver sd. to us the other night.  Awkk--I hate that expression.

    Parent
    Yes I Read Up On Rickshaws (none / 0) (#168)
    by squeaky on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 01:01:25 PM EST
    Sounds nice, are you going to see any Indian Opera?  Bhagavad-Gita dramas?

    How about classical Indian music?

    I am a big fan of  Qawwali music, and especially performed by the late Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan. It is mostly from Pakistan but from what I have read also Indian traditional music. It is the music of the Sufi tradition.

    Parent

    Haven't actually located any (none / 0) (#169)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 09:39:26 AM EST
    Indian opera, although I'm keeping my eyes and ears open.  I spent an afternoon at the National Museum in Delhi; in the auditorium a classical dance school was holding scholarship auditions; each appplicant danced a set routine, usually accompanied by muscians seated cross-legged on the stage; very beautiful costumes; interesting to watch the various dancers, some quite skilled.  The program is a minimum of five years.  

    Tomorrow night we are going to Indiana (!!!) for dinner and to see dancing--probably not as exquisite as what I saw at the museum though.  Museum's special exhibit:  Faberge--first ever for India.  

    Parent

    You know (none / 0) (#136)
    by CST on Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 09:37:23 AM EST
    Bush was pretty terrible.

    But only one U.S. president committed genocide.  And for me personally, that takes the cake.  However, given that history put him on the 20 dollar bill (that would be Andrew Jackson -Lentinel :)), I'd guess Bush will probably kick Lincoln off the five or someting.

    I couldn't stand to watch... (none / 0) (#138)
    by desertswine on Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 09:41:50 AM EST
    that SOB even if it was his "Farewell Address."  I was forced to turn the channel to "Alien Agent,"
    I think it was called. I just want Bush to go, straight to Hell preferably.

    Worst President EVER (none / 0) (#143)
    by NMvoiceofreason on Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 12:58:45 PM EST
    Worse than Watergate.

    Millionfold FISA criminal.

    Obstructer of Justice.

    Conspired to commit treason.

    War criminal.

    Traitor to his oath and the Constitution.

    Traitor to humanity.

    How can Bush be worse (none / 0) (#147)
    by Slado on Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 01:10:26 PM EST
    then LBJ?

    If you main attack against Bush is Iraq then how can you criticize him more then LBJ on a sheer numbers game?

    Watch McNamara's film where he basically apologizes for Vietnam and you will think far worse of LBJ.

    It's not even close BTD.  Calling Bush the worst shows extreme bias.

    It's not (none / 0) (#150)
    by CST on Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 01:14:31 PM EST
    "If you main attack against Bush is Iraq then how can you criticize him more then LBJ on a sheer numbers game?"

    It's only part of the attack.  It is the combination of Iraq with the desecration of the constitution and civil liberties, and destroying the economy.  Vietnam was worse than Iraq, but Bush beats LBJ on all other points.

    I still think Andrew Jackson was worse.

    Parent

    What points? (none / 0) (#151)
    by Slado on Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 01:21:55 PM EST
    Katrina?  

    FISA?

    Gitmo?

    You're running out of excusses.   Bush was not a good or great president.   That's coming from someone who voted for him twice but the liberal Bashing he takes is unfounded and really stupid.

    Obama is the new president.   Time to realisticly judge him and I am going to try my best to not fall into the ranks of Clinton/Bush derangement syndrome in judging him as I mistakenly did 8 years ago and BTD and the rest of you have for the last 8 years.

    Parent

    By the way (none / 0) (#152)
    by Slado on Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 01:23:34 PM EST
    Bush didn't destroy the economy and if he did he had plenty of help from all of us and democrats.

    If the economy doesn't recover in 3 years are you still going to blame him or are you going to admit that spending money you don't have (see a 1 trillion dollar stimulus) isn't a good idea?

    Parent

    see hundreds of billions (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by jondee on Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 01:46:30 PM EST
    borrowed from our totalitarian crediters the Chinese to set up an imperial outpost in Iraq.

    Parent
    Not just war spending was used for that money (1.00 / 0) (#156)
    by Slado on Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 02:55:47 PM EST
    and what is a free healthcaer, carbon taxes and expanded government goign to cost?

    I think Bush is in the high 30's in terms of presidential rankings but to claim he's the worst is typical short term history.

    Parent

    We always have a more (5.00 / 0) (#157)
    by jondee on Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 03:02:49 PM EST
    vivid impression of the who clocked us over the head last Friday vs the guy who clocked our Grandfather over the head,

    But, when we consider geopolitical implications down the road, a case could definatly be made for Bush being the worst, IMO.

    Parent

    Maybe (1.00 / 0) (#159)
    by Slado on Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 03:20:17 PM EST
    but taking your rationale a case could be made that Iraq being free in 10 years will give him a good legacy.

    I am just trying to point out that you have to be pretty forgetfull of past sins of republicans and democrats to call Bush the worst ever.

    Parent

    Bu Bye (none / 0) (#165)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 08:42:16 AM EST
    The healing can now begin.  For anyone doubting that this has been the worst president ever, just wait until the nation heals a bit.  After such a prolonged period of being helpless and hopeless while all areas slide downhill fast, people aren't going to be any happier about this idiot in the future.  NOPE, once our situations improve due to some actual competence applying itself to our problems people are likely to be very very openly hostile about him and towards him.  The shoes have only begun to sail.

    imo, Bush made potus Obama possible. (none / 0) (#171)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 02:40:28 PM EST
    Give him his props.

    Bush Exits | 171 comments (171 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment