[QUOTE=John Corrado]
Anyone who thinks that Bush is the “Worst President Ever” has the historical understanding of a flea. Or Donald Trump.
[/QUOTE]
:rolleyes:
Step 1.) State a subjective, arguable opinion and belittle everyone who doesn’t agree with it.
Step 2.)
Step 3.) Profit!
Why haven’t the pit and GD been merged into one forum yet?
John Corrado, those are all excellent points that we shouldn’t disregard.
I would like to introduce into the discussion that we should be learning from our mistakes that makes later administrations’ replication of past bad behavior less excusable. There’s an old saying in Tennessee – I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee – that says, fool me once, shame on – shame on you. Fool me – you can’t get fooled again.
[QUOTE=John Corrado]
The person who is the “Worst President Ever” is Woodrow Wilson, who did in his eight years all of the miserable shit Bush did, but to a larger extent.
[/QUOTE]
You seem to make a compelling case. I don’t know nearly enough about US history to argue with you, but, in your opinion, why do you think that surveys of scholars and political scientists seem to consistently rank Wilson in the top 10 list of presidents?
Wikipedia article: Historical rankings of United States Presidents
( I looked at the tables in the Wikipedia article and followed some of the available links to other poll results )
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Surprisingly for many readers, perhaps… I am going to agree with this.
[/QUOTE]
And even more surprisingly, since my knowledge of American history is rather limited, I’m going to agree with you as well.
IOW, I’m fifty years old and I can’t point to a worse one in my rather expansive lifetime. For instance, Nixon was a crook that got caught with his hands in the cookie-jar, but as a President he was exceptional in both his understanding and accomplishments in foreign policies. Carter, too good a man to be President, but his failures can hardly be counted in lives lost. And I can’t think of a better ex=President in terms of accomplishments. Reagan, I won’t touch – too iconic for his conservatives fans. But I will say that the man at least knew how to represent America to the rest of the world when he wasn’t falling asleep…and leave it at that. Bush the father? Wish he was President now. 'nuff said.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Surprisingly for many readers, perhaps… I am going to agree with this.
[/QUOTE]
And even more surprisingly, since my knowledge of American history is rather limited, I’m going to agree with you as well.
IOW, I’m fifty years old and I can’t point to a worse one in my rather expansive lifetime. For instance, Nixon was a crook that got caught with his hands in the cookie-jar, but as a President he was exceptional in both his understanding and accomplishments in foreign policies. Carter, too good a man to be President, but his failures can hardly be counted in lives lost. And I can’t think of a better ex-President in terms of accomplishments. Reagan, I won’t touch – too iconic for his conservatives fans. But I will say that the man at least knew how to represent America to the rest of the world when he wasn’t falling asleep…and leave it at that. Bush the father? Wish he was President now. 'nuff said. Kennedy, to my mind, excellent – akin to Clinton in many ways: extremely charismatic, intelligent as all get out, always carried the “America-first” attitude expected of your leaders, but they both boned you with plenty of lube.
PS-Pardon the double post. Hit “submit” too soon.
[QUOTE=tagos]
Iraq is fully and wholly owned by Bush. Vietnam was a creeping screw-up over many administrations. And arguably an order of magnitude less incompetent.
[/QUOTE]
Ok…this is just too funny. Let me ask you a question tagos…how do you know that Vietnam was a creeping screw-up over many administrations? Did you know this was going to be the case in, say, 1964? Why or why not?
Think about it…
-XT
BTW, out of curiosity…why would anyone care what Donald Trump thinks or says? Unless of course he’s saying what you want to hear of course. Even if thats the case (it obviously is)…why not just have a(nother) ‘Bush is the worst President ever: discuss’ thread and leave the Trumpster out of it?
-XT
[QUOTE=RedFury]
And even more surprisingly, since my knowledge of American history is rather limited, I’m going to agree with you as well.
IOW, I’m fifty years old and I can’t point to a worse one in my rather expansive lifetime. For instance, Nixon was a crook that got caught with his hands in the cookie-jar, but as a President he was exceptional in both his understanding and accomplishments in foreign policies. Carter, too good a man to be President, but his failures can hardly be counted in lives lost. And I can’t think of a better ex-President in terms of accomplishments..
[/QUOTE]
Right- Carter was hapless as far as Foriegn policy went, but he didn’t get us into a pointless and immoral war. And Carter’s domestic policies weren’t half-bad.
Nixon was a crook and hs domestic policies were pretty bad, but his foriegn policies were groundbreaking.
GWB combines the worst of both.
GWB did create that huge Wildlife sanctuary out near Hawaii. That’s about it.
[QUOTE=John Corrado]
In contrast to the situation in Iraq, there was valid evidence of significant threats to the United States by Germany. In addition to deaths of U.S. civilians on the high seas due to unrestricted U-boat warfare, there was the Zimmerman telegram (an overture by the Germans offering return of U.S. territories to Mexico in exchange for Mexico’s fighting with the Germans against the U.S. in event of hostilities). Wilson held out against war for years (in contrast to the Republican opposition in Congress) but had little choice in the face of repeated provocations.
There is also the small matter of our involvement in WWI helping to close out that conflict, in contrast to Iraq where we’ve helped precipitate a civil war.
As noted earlier, I think Bush’s sins of omission may ultimately dwarf the bad things he actually has accomplished. But time will tell.
One positive thing about GWB that hardly anyone ever mentions is his relatively high level of physical fitness. He sets a good example for the rest of us.
[QUOTE=Jackmannii]
In contrast to the situation in Iraq, there was valid evidence of significant threats to the United States by Germany.
[/QUOTE]
:dubious: Compared to the Iraqi threat I suppose you would have a point…but then the threat of Iraq was nearly nil (in rhetrospect anyway sans WMD). But Germany was no real threat to the US either…and certainly not enough of a direct threat to the US for us to go to war.
Not that I think the incidental killing of US civilians is a minor thing…but its not like Germany was the only country to ever kill US citizens incidentally during a war…or even when there was no war at all. If we went to war every time US citizens were killed by some other country or group…well, we’d be at war a hell of a lot in that case.
Germany however posed no real national threat to the US…hell, they were barely holding their own in Europe, let alone thinking about what they could or couldn’t do directly to the US. As to trying to rile up the Mexicans against us…well, even if the Mexicans were up for it ( :dubious: ), its not like Mexico posed a serious threat against the US either…even with whatever help Germany could muster. I think the comparison to the paper tiger that Iraq turned out to be is an apt comparison to the ACTUAL threat Germany posed to the US during WWI…which was more psychological than real.
[QUOTE=Jackmannii]
One positive thing about GWB that hardly anyone ever mentions is his relatively high level of physical fitness. He sets a good example for the rest of us.
[/QUOTE]
Bush is in good shape?
-XT
[QUOTE=xtisme]
Bush is in good shape?
-XT
[/QUOTE]
It’s pretty well known that he runs and bikes a lot, and he played sports when he was younger.
[QUOTE=xtisme]
Ok…this is just too funny. Let me ask you a question tagos…how do you know that Vietnam was a creeping screw-up over many administrations? Did you know this was going to be the case in, say, 1964? Why or why not?
Think about it…
-XT
[/QUOTE]
I know this wasn’t aimed at me but I can’t let it pass. I know Vietnam was a creeping screw-up over many (several, at least) administrations because I lived through the damn thing. The Vietnamese Conflict grew and grew and grew and got worse and worse and worse with each passing year. I and plenty of others knew that was going to be the case in, say, 1964. I participated in protests against it, I wrote my congress critters to protest the war, and I alienated myself from most of my family because of my beliefs. I was right, too, and they were wrong. And, I know quite a few guys who came back from there pretty much FUBAR; I know a few guys who left parts of their body in Vietnam and I knew some guys who didn’t come back at all. What’s your history with Vietnam?
[QUOTE=xtisme]
Ok…this is just too funny. Let me ask you a question tagos…how do you know that Vietnam was a creeping screw-up over many administrations? Did you know this was going to be the case in, say, 1964? Why or why not?
Think about it…
-XT
[/QUOTE]
This is possibly the most stupid question I have ever been asked. I’m stunned. How do I know about a well documented historical event?
You mean apart from reading dozens of historical memoirs of the participants? Reading histories and documents? Knowing the history of the region? Growing up with it dominating the news? Studying it for decades afterwards?
You know - the sort of stuff people do to develop an informed opinion on something.
How do I know it was a creeping screw-up? How can you not know? Sheesh.
[QUOTE=Cisco]
It’s pretty well known that he runs and bikes a lot, and he played sports when he was younger.
[/QUOTE]
Not only that, he was a cheerleader. Those pompoms get heavy, you know.
Maybe some of you history buffs can teach me a little bit. If Vietnam was a creeping screwup over several administrations, each president’s role can be described. My limited understanding is that we had a few thousand “advisors” over there when Johnson took office and wound up with hundreds of thousands of soldiers over there (and 30,000 dead) by the time Nixon took over.
If Vietnam ended the day Nixon took office, it would have still been a screwup far larger than Iraq currently is.
[QUOTE=Arnold Winkelried]
You seem to make a compelling case. I don’t know nearly enough about US history to argue with you, but, in your opinion, why do you think that surveys of scholars and political scientists seem to consistently rank Wilson in the top 10 list of presidents?
[/QUOTE]
Wilson was a fuckhead, but he was an influential fuckhead. His attitude towards American foreign policy - interventionism based upon noble, humanitarian ideals when possible - has defined American interventionism for nearly one hundred years now, and is such a powerful image in American minds that they’re willing to join along with the idea even after it continually fails.
And he was also a competent fuckhead. With only a very small staff, Wilson guided the country through World War One and avoided the serious military blunders that not merely plagued but generally defined the Allies’ normal combat actions.
He was also a progressive fuckhead, setting up legislation and Justice Department policy that expanded upon the trust-busting and consumer protections that Theodore Roosevelt had established.
And the problem is, as with Harding, there’s a thirty-second-summary that defines him that gets taught in schools, and the rest gets glossed over. Wilson is the Guy Who Won World War One, and so hossanahs upon him, without exploring whether we should have been involved in the war at all, without discussing how he fucked the peace, and certainly without discussing how he rolled back racial protections. Likewise, Harding is The Worst President Ever, mostly because a supposed mistress wrote a salacious book about him.
[QUOTE=John Corrado]
And (Wilson) was also a competent fuckhead. With only a very small staff, Wilson guided the country through World War One and avoided the serious military blunders that not merely plagued but generally defined the Allies’ normal combat actions.
[/quote]
He actually went GWB one better. Apart from disdaining cooperation with the Congressional opposition (at least on war-related matters), he ignored much of his own Cabinet and other top officials when it suited him (he shunned his ambassador to England (Page) because Page was pro-British and a source of unwelcome facts).
xtisme - As to Germany not being a real threat to the U.S. - you could have made a similar argument about Nazi Germany not directly threatening America. If Germany had won WWI, dictated terms to the Allies and kept its U-boat fleet, the impact on the U.S. economy alone could have been severe.
Pretty much so. Troop totals went from 16,000 to over 500,000 during the Johnson Administration. When it comes to lying to the American people, Johnson is high in the rankings. During the '64 campaign he kept talking about “U.S. boys (soldiers) not doing what Vietnamese boys should be doing” and the Dems painted Goldwater as a warmonger. Then when Johnson was elected he went right ahead and escalated our involvement in the war.
[QUOTE=Cheesesteak]
Maybe some of you history buffs can teach me a little bit. If Vietnam was a creeping screwup over several administrations, each president’s role can be described. My limited understanding is that we had a few thousand “advisors” over there when Johnson took office and wound up with hundreds of thousands of soldiers over there (and 30,000 dead) by the time Nixon took over.
[/quote]
Yes, AFAIK LBJ escalated the conflict, and most of the deaths were incurred on his watch. Of course, Nixon escalated things as well, with his bombing campaigns.
But ISTM that Iraq is equally a “creeping screwup over several administrations”. Bush was President when Saddam invaded Kuwait, but it wasn’t the same Bush. And the twelve years or so of refusal to abide by the conditions of the ceasefire and publicly disarm that were listed as primary reasons for the invasion (along with WMD) happened during the Clinton years. Then the final invasion under Bush Jr., and now the denouement under whoever is next - HRC, Obama, Romney, or (more likely IMO) somebody else.
Well, possibly, but it didn’t end then. Viet Nam didn’t become a complete screw-up until after Watergate and the resignation. The Viet Cong rested and rebuilt their military while the US was paralyzed by the scandal. Then the North predicted (quite correctly) that Congress was not going to do what they said they would (support the South if the North broke their word and invaded), invaded, and took over.
In the same way, the situations will not be completely analogous until we pull out of Iraq, and then Iran invades or something (or foments civil war in much more blatant ways), and then Congress is busy trying to impeach Bush (or whatever) and refuses to get involved.
I know it is not possible to convince the Usual Suspects that Iraq is anything other than The Worst Thing That Has Ever Happened, but the final outcome is only certain in their minds, not the real world. A lot depends on what happens next, and who is elected in 2008.
Regards,
Shodan
[QUOTE=LouisB]
I know this wasn’t aimed at me but I can’t let it pass. I know Vietnam was a creeping screw-up over many (several, at least) administrations because I lived through the damn thing. The Vietnamese Conflict grew and grew and grew and got worse and worse and worse with each passing year. I and plenty of others knew that was going to be the case in, say, 1964. I participated in protests against it, I wrote my congress critters to protest the war, and I alienated myself from most of my family because of my beliefs. I was right, too, and they were wrong. And, I know quite a few guys who came back from there pretty much FUBAR; I know a few guys who left parts of their body in Vietnam and I knew some guys who didn’t come back at all. What’s your history with Vietnam?
[/QUOTE]
Well, I grew up during the thing too…and my dad fought there. The point I was trying to make (unsuccessfully), is that while Vietnam was the stated ‘creeping screw-up over many administrations’, we didn’t know (early on) that it was going to be what it became…and we don’t yet KNOW what Iraq will turn out to be. Unless someone has a hold of a time machine and isn’t sharing. We don’t know how it will turn out.
Obviously my point was lost on you (and tagos…I’ll get to him in a sec) however.
[QUOTE=tagos]
This is possibly the most stupid question I have ever been asked. I’m stunned. How do I know about a well documented historical event?
[/QUOTE]
No, the point I was making is…how do you know about an event that hasn’t happened yet. Do you know how Iraq will turn out? Do you know what the next administration will do…or not do? Do you even know what that adminstration will be? How do you know that, 3 administrations down the pike, we won’t STILL be bogged down in Iraq? How do you know that the next admininstration, or the one after that, won’t actually up the tempo, ship in more troops, or otherwise increase the situation?
[QUOTE=tagos]
You mean apart from reading dozens of historical memoirs of the participants? Reading histories and documents? Knowing the history of the region? Growing up with it dominating the news? Studying it for decades afterwards?
[/QUOTE]
yawn You are literally answering the question I asked…you didn’t ‘think about it’ I see. Yeah, I know that Vietnam was what it was…my point was, we don’t know what kind of animal Iraq is yet. And yet, you are making predictions as if you were in 1964 on how Vietnam will go. Granted I was a kid in 1964…but I was unaware that it would turn out the way it did.
[QUOTE=tagos]
How do I know it was a creeping screw-up? How can you not know? Sheesh.
[/QUOTE]
Well, let me answer your question there guru since you missed the point…you KNOW because its history. You KNOW because of hindsight…and 'cause you either read it in a history book, you lived through it, or you saw it on a documentary or some other historic source. Do you get it NOW? Or do you need a map?
-XT