George Bush the Worst President in 100 Years?

[Tatar Khan]

Yeah Reagan was an idiot.

[Wolf]

Well, I'll contend with you then that both Bush and Buchanan were worse than Reagan. I dispute the long-lasting effects of Reagan's harm, and would argue that the international harm Bush has done in creating a world that is more suspicious, more violent, and less able to deal with these issues is on the whole more dangerous than Reagan's economic sins (I know they strike a nerve with you, though, so I'm sensitive). We also have to bear in mind that the full effect of the Bush years has not been borne out, whereas Reagan's more or less has.

Buchanan's case is more intellectual and whimsical, I'll admit, but imagine what damage would have been done had the Confederacy actually succeeded. Harry Turtledove has a great number of books on the subject, and they largely lead to the extinction of democracy worldwide by 1944, in addition to two world wars bloodier than the ones we knew. Ew.

[Edric O]

Well, I'll contend with you then that both Bush and Buchanan were worse than Reagan. I dispute the long-lasting effects of Reagan's harm, and would argue that the international harm Bush has done in creating a world that is more suspicious, more violent, and less able to deal with these issues is on the whole more dangerous than Reagan's economic sins (I know they strike a nerve with you, though, so I'm sensitive). We also have to bear in mind that the full effect of the Bush years has not been borne out, whereas Reagan's more or less has.

I see Reagan as the creator of neoconservatism - or at least the man who promoted neoconservatism to the level of a major American political ideology. Therefore, I include Bush's foreign policy and its effects within Reagan's legacy. The Project for the New American Century and all the other think tanks behind White House policy for the past 8 years have taken their inspiration from Reagan.

Furthermore, Reagan's economic sins are not limited to domestic policies within the United States. The current framework of the world economy with its free market paradigm was developed during the 1980s, and it was mainly driven by the administrations of Reagan, Thatcher, and Deng Xiaoping (let's not forget Deng; the world economy as we know it is driven by the relationship between the United States and China).

Buchanan's case is more intellectual and whimsical, I'll admit, but imagine what damage would have been done had the Confederacy actually succeeded. Harry Turtledove has a great number of books on the subject, and they largely lead to the extinction of democracy worldwide by 1944, in addition to two world wars bloodier than the ones we knew. Ew.

Yes, I've read one of his books (and the summaries for the others; I like his ideas but the writing style is too drawn-out for me to pick up a second book). The alternative history he builds is not one I'd like to live in. But you don't even need him to make your case - it's pretty clear that a Confederate victory would have meant at the very least terrible hardship for the black population in the South, and there is no question that the United States and the Confederate States would have ended up on opposite sides in World War 1. What might have happened during and after WW1 is anyone's guess, but I really can't see any potential benefit arising from it that could have possibly compensated for the evils of the Confederacy.

So yes, I do agree that Buchanan was worse than any 20th century president, Bush and Reagan included.

[Andrew]

Memo: Laws Didn't Apply to Interrogators

As Bush has said many times, such as this:

Secondly, this government does not torture people. You know, we stick to U.S. law and our international obligations.*

*Torturers not included. The law is changed to accommodate whatever the government wants, and US citizens do not need to be informed of these changes.

Interrogators who harmed a prisoner would be protected by a "national and international version of the right to self-defense,"

Ha. That's kind of like pre-emptivly invading Iraq because of WMD. Or sending Canadians to be tortured because of their religion or because they are suspected terrorists with no evidence.

[Dunenewt]

Just out of interest, in terms of foreign policy, wouldn't you say that Roosevelt was a worse President?

[Edric O]

Err, no, winning World War 2 rather counts in his favour... Granted, the US was isolationist during most of his presidency, but that was against his wishes. Or at least the negative part of isolationism (doing nothing while all hell broke loose in Europe) was certainly against his wishes.

[Andrew]

If the War on Terror is finished/solved by the time Bush is out of office, then he might just be the best president ever for starting and finishing such a difficult task. I'm sure it will occur soon after the war on drugs is finished.

[Dunenewt]

Err, no, winning World War 2 rather counts in his favour... Granted, the US was isolationist during most of his presidency, but that was against his wishes. Or at least the negative part of isolationism (doing nothing while all hell broke loose in Europe) was certainly against his wishes.

Yes, he was the President of the USA during the Second World War, but the way he went about it was awful, as he almost ended up alienating France, the UK, and it was his fault the Soviet Union went on to control Eastern Europe, due to his lack of understanding of Foreign Affairs, and how the World works.  If it wasn't for Churchill, it all could have been much much worse.

France was attacked in 1940 by Nazi Germany, and Northern France was occupied. Southern France was governed by Vichy France, which collaborated with the Nazis and Axis Powers. Governor Gilbert de Bournat of St. Pierre remained loyal to Vichy France, but the islands were confronted with a difficult situation. The islands were dependent on France for subsidies; it is estimated that in the first part of the 20th century, France spent 40 million francs supporting the economy of the islands. Also, a substantial fraction of the French fishing fleet decided not to return to Nazi-controlled France and remained in the St. Pierre harbor. French General Charles de Gaulle was unhappy with the surrender of France to Germany, and created the Free French movement in London. Eventually the Free French movement was recognized by Prime Minister Winston Churchill as the government of France in exile. Also, the UK, the US, and Newfoundland were nervous about allowing Saint Pierre and Miquelon to remain under the control of Vichy France. This was because Saint Pierre and Miquelon could be used by the Axis powers as a base for spying on Allied shipping (there was a radio transmitter on St. Pierre that was thought to be sending messages to German submarines).

During the early years of World War II, the United States retained nominal relations with Vichy France in an attempt to further block Nazi Germany war aims. The United States, as a result of policy established by the Monroe Doctrine was strongly opposed to any change in control of the islands; and Canada (possibly through pressure by Winston Churchill) did not want Vichy France forces so near to Canada. De Gaulle realized that the Canada might want to capture Saint Pierre and Miquelon (thereby eliminating French Territory so close to Quebec), so he secretly planned an assault on the islands. On Christmas Eve 1941, Free French forces led by Rear-Admiral Émile Muselier "invaded" the islands on behalf of Charles de Gaulle, commanding three corvettes and the submarine Surcouf. The Vichy administration on the islands immediately surrendered.

The way Roosevelt handled the French was awful, and the way he was more interested in dismantling the British and French Empires rather than contain the Soviet threat showed how inept he had become.

[Andrew]

Bush Seeks $770 Million More in World Food Aid

How noble of Bush to do this in the last 6 months of his term (hungry people didn't matter before then?). The $700 million is worth 2 days in Iraq. Also noted that if this was done when he started office, the money would be worth 25% more, and food prices would be lower and thus hungry people would get a lot more to eat.

So does this mean if approved, the USA will borrow this money to feed others? Doesn't sound like a good plan. Once again thinking of ways to spend money they do not have.

[Khan]

Damn Andrew the guy can't even give money to charity when you're around.

[Andrew]

The US government does not have the money to give to charities or to bail out the banks, or the American people, yet they continue to do so.

It seems the way they plan on getting out of this recession is by spending their way out. It might work (although if they do nothing it will resolve itself), but inflation will be so high prices for goods by the time it is over will be much higher than before the recession.

I'd be pissed if the Canadian government decided they were going on a spending spree and creating large deficits.

[Acriku]

The US government does not have the money to give to charities or to bail out the banks, or the American people, yet they continue to do so.

It seems the way they plan on getting out of this recession is by spending their way out. It might work (although if they do nothing it will resolve itself), but inflation will be so high prices for goods by the time it is over will be much higher than before the recession.

I'd be pissed if the Canadian government decided they were going on a spending spree and creating large deficits.

The best solution to not having the money? Making MORE money!! We're BLOODY rich!

[Andrew]

Bush agrees with you Acriku-

Bush Requests $70 Billion in War Funding for Iraq, Afghanistan Through 2009

Spreading freedom is expensive.

[Khan]

You can't put a price on freedom. At least not just one price. ;)

[Sneakgab]

Maybe is the US government actually set up a proper police force in Iraq (which would then maintain itself) they wouldn't be paying the bills for the security of that country. To bad they decided to dish out $ to corporates (well, contractors) instead of doing it themselves. Some people these days seem to have the mentality that more $, control, and power for corporates is always good. Maybe if they had at least handed the cash to people who they could trust to get the job done instead of who they did it hand to (well, the decision process for handing out contracts and assignments for overlooking these contracts was quite ridiculous if I recall).

[Andrew]

@Sneakgab

I was particularly perplexed by the police station that cost several million and was as structurally sound as an outhouse. I forget the exact story. It is somewhere in this thread. While looking for it I found these gems:

U.S. cannot account for billion-dollar Iraq contract

Scandal-hit US firm wins key contracts

DynCorp, which has donated more than

[Sneakgab]

Well, Bush himself doesn't have to care that much since he isn't running for president again (is he? The thread on the issue made it seem like he wasn't). I guess he does have to worry about getting ''demoted'' to much though as a result of reducing his party's chances in the next election though.

On the issue of accountability, who was it who handed these contracts over anyway? I'm guessing the president has power on these matters. Even if it was solely Bush's fault, one could argue that this is also a fault of the power for electing him leader of the party in the first place.

Btw... isn't agreeing to a contract to do something and being payed a large sum for it and then not fulfilling your part of the contract illegal (at least if you don't return the money)?

Is it a matter of proof? If that's the case, then surely those videos involving faeces tainted constructions and whatnot are proof enough for many of the case?

I do seem to recall some major assigned a contract being called before the council and basically saying: screw you guys..... Surely this should lead to some kind of punishment/reprisal?

[Andrew]

Wikileaks Gets Hold of Counterinsurgency Manual

Looks like wikileaks might be down.

Basically in this manual it shows that the government and military do lots of illegal activities all the time. Such as how to topple democratically elected governments in Latin America and do the same thing elsewhere.

Just look at Saddam, the US government got him into power, supported him in a war against Iran and once they didn

[Tatar Khan]

Don't worry Saudi Arabia won't get invaded they got Mecca and Medina that will protect them better than any nuclear shield.

There is nothing new about US toppling the government in the Americas because their policies were anti-American interests. Those policies were hurting American interests so the governments got replaced with who supported the American interests.

Regular politics, nothing shocking.

Support of Saddam and Taliban was beneficial back in the day, however when they turned they had to be removed in exchange for somebody who would be more friendly.

[Sneakgab]

''Mecca and Medina that will protect them better than any nuclear shield. ''

Are you trying to say that the inevitably resulting jihad would ensure no hostile action from the U.S as they would fear it to much?

''Regular politics, nothing shocking.''

I think it is the extent and dishonor/dishonesty (not necessarily regarding Saddam and the Taliban) that most find shocking.

[Tatar Khan]

''Mecca and Medina that will protect them better than any nuclear shield. ''

Are you trying to say that the inevitably resulting jihad would ensure no hostile action from the U.S as they would fear it to much?

Yeah, check how many Muslims just live in US. The second largest organisation of countries after UN is the organisation of Muslim states.

''Regular politics, nothing shocking.''

I think it is the extent and dishonor/dishonesty (not necessarily regarding Saddam and the Taliban) that most find shocking.

People are idealists and so it is hard for the governments to break their bubble, people will vote for a person who will claim the ideals rather than talk foreign policy and interests and such.

[Andrew]

Congress grants retroactive immunity to telecoms for illegally spying on americans

House approves overhaul of wiretap laws

The deal breaks a four-month impasse between the Bush administration and Congress over whether to protect telecommunication companies that took part in a program that critics say was illegal.

Nice to see it is legal for corporations to spy on Americans. Hurray! I'm sure you all feel much safer now knowing you are all being spied on.

[exatreide]

We have nothing to hide comrade...

Wait a second...who could that be?

Who's that knocking at the door at this hour?

*this message has been saved by the department of homeland spying. For a low low price of 29.99 you to can spy on your fellow Americans. Please contact a local Verizon store near you for more information*

*Offer not valid in Hawaii, Alaska, or Vermont.*

[Andrew]

White House Refused to Open Pollutants E-Mail

The White House in December refused to accept the Environmental Protection Agency’s conclusion that greenhouse gases are pollutants that must be controlled, telling agency officials that an e-mail message containing the document would not be opened, senior E.P.A. officials said last week.

This is how the Bush government deals with pollution. By imagining it is not there.

If they do not open the email, then they don't have to acknowledge it exists.

Stupidest government ever.

EDIT:

From same article, the government gets even stupider.

Over the past five days, the officials said, the White House successfully put pressure on the E.P.A. to eliminate large sections of the original analysis that supported regulation, including a finding that tough regulation of motor vehicle emissions could produce $500 billion to $2 trillion in economic benefits over the next 32 years. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter.

So the Bush government makes EPA change their findings. Great.

Bush gov official to EPA: "Hey we don't like your findings. Do you think you could dumb it down and remove large parts of it that say emissions need to be regulated? Thanks. Remember if you don't do this you lose your job."

[danicus]

G.w. Bush the worst president in 100 years? How soon we forget. I can answer the question in two words: Jimmy Carter. W's presidency isn't over yet, so I'd say the jury is still out on him. He has time still to pass Carter as the worst, but he'll have to hurry.

Before you start to rebut about what a wonderful, decent, and righteous man Carter has shown himself to be ... I totally agree. But the thread is about the worst President, which Carter was. A decent human, a horrid president.

Many of you have taken the time here to bash W, he deserves it, well, a lot of it. It comes with the job.

As far as the next president just remember no matter who wins they're going to be a politician  :-