View Full Version : The Worst President in History?

08-24-2006, 09:59 AM
George W. Bush's presidency appears headed for colossal historical disgrace. Barring a cataclysmic event on the order of the terrorist attacks of September 11th, after which the public might rally around the White House once again, there seems to be little the administration can do to avoid being ranked on the lowest tier of U.S. presidents. And that may be the best-case scenario. Many historians are now wondering whether Bush, in fact, will be remembered as the very worst president in all of American history.

From time to time, after hours, I kick back with my colleagues at Princeton to argue idly about which president really was the worst of them all. For years, these perennial debates have largely focused on the same handful of chief executives whom national polls of historians, from across the ideological and political spectrum, routinely cite as the bottom of the presidential barrel. Was the lousiest James Buchanan, who, confronted with Southern secession in 1860, dithered to a degree that, as his most recent biographer has said, probably amounted to disloyalty -- and who handed to his successor, Abraham Lincoln, a nation already torn asunder? Was it Lincoln's successor, Andrew Johnson, who actively sided with former Confederates and undermined Reconstruction? What about the amiably incompetent Warren G. Harding, whose administration was fabulously corrupt? Or, though he has his defenders, Herbert Hoover, who tried some reforms but remained imprisoned in his own outmoded individualist ethic and collapsed under the weight of the stock-market crash of 1929 and the Depression's onset? The younger historians always put in a word for Richard M. Nixon, the only American president forced to resign from office.

Now, though, George W. Bush is in serious contention for the title of worst ever.
web page (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/worst_president_in_history) http://i.realone.com/assets/rn/img/7/8/6/1/9961687-9961690-slarge.jpg

08-24-2006, 10:14 AM
Bush has snafu'd everything, and caused so much loss of life, loss of respect and security of this country, he's definitely the worst, hands down. Don't be surprised if something terrible does happen again while he's in office in order to get his following again. I personally don't trust that all of what's happened already, including 911 was beyond his knowing, helping his second election succeed.

He IS the worst. Flying all of those relatives of BL out of the country during the shutdown of our airspace following 911 should have been a criminal offense in itself....sid~~~George "The Worst" Bush, makes Clinton look like the Pope

Gayle in MD
08-24-2006, 10:20 AM
Pretty bad, considering, we're fighting a war that bush long ago named our War On Terror, in a country from which not one terrorist ever came to attack us.

I think, when you consider that our foremost terrorist expert, Richard Clarke, has written about how the Republican witch hunt hurt our counter terrorist efforts, particularly regarding bin Laden, during Clinton's Administration, which was launched by the radical right in this country, it is a disgrace to have to listen to Dick Cheney continually suggest that those who speak out against the incompetence of this administration, help the terrorists! The Republican witch hunt against Clinton, helped the terrorists, by crippling this country with impeachment proceedings over gentleman's lie about a non issue.

Nothing has helped terrorists, as much as George Bush's policies.

If we are attacked, it will be bin Laden and his followers who will attack us, and this time, the Administration will not be able to deny their knowledge of the warning of an impending attack from bin Laden. People will not rally around the President, because they will all finally have to acknowledge that George Bush intentionally distracted our country from a real threat, and failed to protect us, because of his pre-presidential agenda for Iraq. All those who tried to warn our nation that his administration refused to listen to their pre 9/11 warnings, and then refused to address our tru on-going threat, will say, We tried to tell you.

I hope I never again have to witness my fellow citizens comply with false statements, denial of accountability and wrong-doing, out of partisanship, and pure hatred of the opposing party, even at the risk of our National Security. Americans must never again be intimidated by fear and reprisals for questioning incompetence and illegal, unrealistic, un-american policies.

There has been no President in my lifetime who has so disgraced our country, and its values, or is more deserving of impeachment, than George Bush. His failure to Protect and Defend our country, (and its laws and Constitution) from attack, and invasion, is unprecedented.

Gayle in Md.

Fran Crimi
08-24-2006, 11:52 AM
From time to time, after hours, I kick back with my colleagues at Princeton to argue idly about which president really was the worst of them all. <hr /></blockquote>


" That line was for those of you morons out there who read Rolling Stone and don't know how famous and important I am. I realize this isn't the New York Times so I do have to remind the readership who I am. Now that I've thrown out the buzzword 'Princeton', please pay attention to my words because I am indeed....a...very...important...person, a world famous historian, to be exact, and you all should be doting on my every word."

08-24-2006, 12:32 PM
I think the "my colleagues at Princeton" line, was included to give himself some credibility with his readers....as opposed to, say, an unlettered person like myself writing it. It's an extremely well-written article,
imho. You're free to disagree,and we both read the article with our own particular bias... but like Ed, you have not disputed any of the statements contained therein; just some disparaging remarks about the Author.
It's a damning report!!!....

Gayle in MD
08-24-2006, 12:44 PM
Funny thing is...there are plenty of world famous historians, among other fields of expertise, who also think that George Bush is the worst president ever, and they have written many many books on the subject. /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

08-24-2006, 12:46 PM
R, great article....thanks for the link.
As the trappings of power push GWB more and more towards
megalomania....(he now does not tolerate any dissent), we can only pray that another "timely" 9/11, will not occur, and keep these people in power. It took the war to get GWB a second term....it'll take another terrorist attack, to elect another Republican admin.

08-24-2006, 01:01 PM
Well then....let's get their names, and castigate the lot.

Gayle in MD
08-24-2006, 01:05 PM
/ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Gayle in MD
08-24-2006, 01:35 PM
An excellent article! Thanks Snake. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

08-24-2006, 01:55 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
From time to time, after hours, I kick back with my colleagues at Princeton to argue idly about which president really was the worst of them all. <hr /></blockquote>

Now that I've thrown out the buzzword 'Princeton', please pay attention to my words because I am indeed....a...very...important...person, a world famous historian, to be exact, and you all should be doting on my every word." <hr /></blockquote>

He does have some rather impressive credentials. (http://www.princeton.edu/pr/news/98/q4/wilentz-bio.htm)

Based on this previous article he also appears capable of astute critical thinking regardless of which side of the political spectrum his observation lands.

Mr. Hitchens's Revisionism of His Own History
By Sean Wilentz

Mr. Wilentz is a professor of history at Princeton University.

In his interview with the right-wing web magazine FrontPageMag.com, re-posted on HNN, Christopher Hitchens claims that his moment of truth about Islamic fascism arrived in 1989, and that by September 11, 2001, he had fully come to "[t]he realization that American power could and should be used for the defense of pluralism." He then says that after seeing the World Trade Center atrocities on television, he was exhilarated: "Here we are then, I was thinking, in a war to the finish between everything I love and everything I hate. Fine. We will win and they will lose."

Mr. Hitchens was thinking nothing of the sort, and he knows it. He was thinking, in standard, knee-jerk anti-American terms, that America was largely to blame for bringing on the attacks. And he said so, in a particularly sickening column for the Guardian published on September 13, 2001:

<font color="blue"> With cellphones still bleeping piteously from under the rubble, it probably seems indecent to most people to ask if the United States has ever done anything to attract such awful hatred. Indeed, the very thought, for the present, is taboo. Some senators and congressmen have spoken of the loathing felt by certain unnamed and sinister elements for the freedom and prosperity of America, as if it were only natural that such a happy and successful country should inspire envy and jealousy. But that is the limit of permissible thought.

In general, the motive and character of the perpetrators is shrouded by rhetoric about their "cowardice" and their "shadowy" character, almost as if they had not volunteered to immolate themselves in the broadest of broad blue daylight. On the campus where I am writing this, there are a few students and professors willing to venture points about United States foreign policy. But they do so very guardedly, and it would sound like profane apologetics if transmitted live. So the analytical moment, if there is to be one, has been indefinitely postponed.</font color>

I am glad to see that Mr. Hitchens has since changed his mind about the dangers posed by Osama Bin Laden and about the imperatives of American power. But he has falsified history. Twenty-four hours after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon -- barely two years ago -- Hitchens fiddled on about the evil Americans and their taboos and their refusal to reckon with their wickedness. Mr. Hitchens may be a historian, but he is what George W. Bush calls a "revisionist historian" -- and in this case the history is his own. His invocation of George Orwell can at best be judged as cynical. <hr /></blockquote>

web page (;hl=en&amp;gl=us&amp;ct=clnk&amp;cd=4&amp;cl ient=firefox-a)

08-24-2006, 01:55 PM
"It took the war to get GWB a second term....it'll take another terrorist attack, to elect another Republican admin."

Or have this idiot we have now declare martial law if an attack was properly orchestrated and timed, and stay in office! I ain't puttin' nuthin past these crooks. It could just happen...sid

Fran Crimi
08-24-2006, 04:15 PM
Hey, I didn't say he doesn't have credentials. I just find it interesting that he felt it necessary to throw out the Princeton thing. A humble man might have done otherwise. The great ones tend to be the more humble ones, dontcha think?


Fran Crimi
08-24-2006, 04:19 PM
Well, I think he's being a bit premature to start judging. I haven't a clue whether he's right or wrong. There are a lot of things that went on in past presidential terms that didn't come into public view until years and even sometimes decades later. I become a bit leary about people who speak of the present as if it were the past. I thought historians historically (pardon the pun) studied history.

...Or do they try to manipulate it? I get mixed up sometimes. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif


08-24-2006, 05:55 PM
Me, myself, i allwayz thort that Herbert Hoover was a good guy -- i think that he wanted to spend one billion dollars, that the USA didnt have, to help employment (mainly for a dam i think), but ran foul of Congress who wanted to balance the books -- the depression only ended when Congress somehow found 18 billion dollars to enter the war.

I am surprized that historianz still talk about the stock market crash az starting the depression -- it was the stock market surge that did it -- the industrial indicators were crashing a long time before The-Crash.

We had our own Hoover here in Oz -- Jack Lang -- Black-Jack was a State Premier (NSW) in the depression -- he was fired by the Governor for overspending the state budget by a few million pounds (to help employment) -- the ozzy states have to balance their books, by law -- the federal government haz the power to have a deficit, but they decided to have a surplus (to help employment).

How can historianz write (economic) history if they believe stupid economic dogma -- economics was and iz and (unfortunately) will continue to be, a religion -- we might az well ask the Roman Catholic Church.... "who woz the worst President??" -- real (economic) history iz a long wayz off yet, i am afraid.

08-24-2006, 06:49 PM
Hu waz da wurst przedint en da his story ov da Younighted Staetz-Hu nosz. Hu iz Hu.... Ha Ha Ha Ha