It is Congress’ fault that we didn’t get back into Vietnam, but it wasn’t because of any law they passed. They did pass the War Powers Resolution, which is of dubious value because it may or may not be Contitutional, but that by itself wouldn’t have stopped a return. No, it was that Congress refused to fund any military action. Ford asked for a big time emergency package and was refused, and that was that. The other reality is that the only way we were getting back into that mess was if North Vietnam had proceeded to invade Hawaii. If the South thought that we were serious about coming back after the previous decade’s debacle they were deluding themselves, and that was another failing of Congress, their unwillingness to abide by a lawful obligation (SEATO for one, a mutual defense treaty for another).
Yeah, Vietnam was a big clusterfuck end to end no matter how you look at it.
I always had a lot of respect for Bush the Elder until he sold his soul to Reagan to get the VP nod. Even with that, I agree, he was 100 times a better president than his son.
There are very few people in the entire country with a greater entitlement mindset than the current occupant of the White House. From getting into an Ivy League college with mediocre SAT’s and grades, to convincing Texans to enrich him via a baseball stadium bought with public funds to finally having the entire goddamned Supreme Court full of his daddy’s men hand him the presidentcy George W. Bush’s sense of entitlement of a magnitude much greater than ever dreamed of by any welfare recipient.
That profound lack of self awareness is the quality I most despise in him.
He’s much much better in his present role, I think, as sort of an unofficial ambassador, going to different countries, observing elections, working with Habitat for Humanity. If anything, he was simply too, oh, I dunno, honest for the job-being a politician definitely requires some measure of cynicism and bullshitting.
I wonder if anyone has read the latest issue of GQ-I got it because I heard there was an interview with my TV news crush, Keith Olbermann. Olbermann thinks that Bush is going to surpass Nixon by the time he’s out of office-that he’ll be considered even worse.
If you think that slavery might possibly have ended more peacefully, then you have to attribute the war’s “inevitability” in large part to the Dred Scott case. Now consider:
But Buchanan still didn’t get us into war by a deliberate action on his part, much less lie about his reasons for it. He thought, naively and stupidly but genuinely, that he was helping eliminate the problem.
Still gotta give Harding the nod as the worst *person * to be President, just ahead of Nixon, but Dubya ranks right up there with Harding and Buchanan for the worst Presidencies, based on considering both goals and results. Ignore Nixon’s use of the government for a campaign of vindictiveness and his administration was a pretty accomplished one. He and Dubya are certainly far from the only Presidents to have had wide vindictive streaks, but are among the few who’ve used the power of government to indulge them.
Well, they were doing okay when your lot were in there. Nixon had no friggin trouble secretly bombing Cambodia with congressional approval either. Regardless of a promise by Nixon (and you can take that to the bank can’t you) the war ended for the USA when the troops pulled out. Just like the second world war started for the USA in 1941, not with Lend-Lease.
You make a good point with which I agree. I was mainly trying to counter-point the idea of “the worst president ever”. I wonder how bad GWB’s presidency will compare against others 20 years from now.
The comparison against Nixon’s presidency makes for a good discussion, because 20 years ago, he was “the worst president ever”. Time has change our perspective. Perhaps some worse presidents helped change it, too.
I would consider decisions that have lasting negative (which is a matter of opinion) impact.
For example, #1 on my personal “worst” list is Reagan. The thing that pushes him to the top of the list is promoting (throught the courts) the idea of arresting property as part of the War on Drugs. This had lead to an policy of confiscation of property for profit by law enforcement that short circuits the due process of the accused. I consider this a major blow to the Constitution that has become more or less permanent and accepted.
GWB has committed a similar grievance with the denial of due process to the interned suspected terrorists. It’s too early to tell if this will induce a permanent change in America’s tolerance level.
Since the OP was involved Nixon, I give my opinion on his impact. Nixon changed the way Americans looked at their leaders. He brought about a cynacism and skepticism that didn’t exist before at the Executive level. One could argue about whether or not this was a good thing.
I agree that Harding was a rotter, and possibly more corrupt than GWB. I was only comparing Nixon and GWB, and I’m frankly not qualified to say that the younger Bush is the worst of our 43 presidents. I am pretty sure he’s the worst in my lifetime, but I’m only 57 years old.
I could say a lot more at Mr. Bush, but I have a stir-fry dinner to prepare. Be well, and thrive.
I’m no fan of Nixon but he was a consummate politician who succeeded in politics by his ability and brains. He won a full-ride scholarship to Harvard but turned it down to go to Whittier instead, but after that did go to Duke Law on another full scholarship. Whatever we may say of his character flaws that led to his final downfall, the man had ability.
Even Reagan towers above Shrub in character and ability.
The only thing I like about GW is that I can trot him out as the perfect example to anyone who claims the US doesn’t have a class system. He is an american-style aristocrat who has had everything handed to him because of who he is, not what he does.