Why is it so difficult for some people to accept that EVERY president is to blame for the mess we're in now?

Question

For example:
It was Harding and Coolidge's policies which got us into the Great Depression, and Hoover took the blame. The Great Depression prevented the US from getting involved in WWII right away, which led to us developing nuclear power, which led to the Cold War.
Truman got us into Korea, Eisenhower got us out, but meddled in the affairs in the Congo/Zaire; Kennedy and Johnson were the first to begin sending soldiers to Viet Nam. That crippled our military, and destroyed their morale, which led to the Carter adminstration-led attacks on terrorism to fail.
Reagan and Bush 41 attempted to use bin Ladin and Hussein to fight communism, which led to more terrorist attacks. Clinton did nothing to resolve the situation, and now we have Bush.
So how can everything be blamed on Bush? He's not perfect, by ANY stretch of the imagination...but is he to blame for the line of events that brought us to where we are?

It's my goal to become a high school history teacher. History is important. If we don't know where we came from, how will we know where we're going?

In regards to Fulf's comments, as far as citing sources:
All I did was use what I read in history books throughout school, and connected the dots. These are things that should be well-known, but in history class, one is not normally taught to connect the dots.
Read history books, connect the men who were in office during the most pivotal times in US history, with everything happening now. It's easy to do.
Everything IS connected.

Answer 1

The President is an easy target for the ignorant. Don't blame the person, blame the school systems for not teaching history anymore. I feel sorry for the liberals, they are truly a victim of their own kind. The evil libs knew that ignorance would make it easier for them to control people. They knew that laziness would lead to ignorance. So they infiltrated the school system and began to teach laziness and non history. Things like Rosa Parks, and self esteem classes, sex ed, etc. These things are trivial in the overall scheme of things. But to teach connections like the ones you have made is far beyond what they taught in my history classes. Thank God I had parents with sense enough to show me the important things in life, so I can be an informed conservative.

Answer 2

It's a good point and one that every student should learn as they tend to view the world as having sprung into being when they did. However I still believe that dubya will go down in history in the bottom 10th percentile as Presidents go. His policies have at the very least accelerated Iran's eventual regional hegemony in the region and resisting that will drain American military power for a decade. Whether we would be better off with someone else is a matter of personal opinion. One can never analyze the road not taken but it's hard to see how it could realistically be much worse.

As an example: Would Britain have been better off with Churchhill at the helm instead of Chamberlain when Hitler annexed the Sudetenland? I think WWII would have be over soon, been less bloody, although probably not avoided and we'd no doubt be criticizing Churchill for mistakes he made but IMO we'd have been measure ably better off. Presedents don't usually get to make "Lady and the Tiger" choices. They don't have the power to radically alter things that way. It's close to "a slap in the face or a kick in the nuts" and I know which one I'd rather get.

And as for Rooby Roo's comment the lack of historical perspective cuts both ways. After all We were NOT greated as liberators in Iraq were we? But the Conservatives fine grasp of history thought we would be.

Answer 3

What usually happens is that the media is used by politicians to twist the truth. We forget that most of the Senators voted to go to war based upon the intelligence that was available. Did the intelligence lie? Probably not. It took our military several weeks to mount the full attack, which is plenty of time to move the weapons of mass destruction. Now, Kerry, Hillary, and others all act like they did not vote to go to war. A president should not be blamed for the actions of the People. A president should be blamed when he takes matters into his own hands by Executive Order, which is what Clinton did many times.

Thanks for your explanation, but it would be nice to see the sources where you get your information. Nobody seems to do that in this forum... so people are led to believe that everything is fact.

Answer 4

Yes it is the responsibility of each administration .But lets place the blame where it should lie and that's the people of America that need to vote and bring about change but fail to do so while just pissing and moaning about everything.Blame who you want but look at yourself first.What have you done as a citizen to make this country better and have the President answer to you and not the lobbies of big business and special interests.

Answer 5

Your interesting and long list ended with Bush.

George Bush goes to a primary school to give a speech. After his talk he offers question time.

One little boy puts up his hand and George asks him what his name is.

" Bob".

"And what is your question, Bob?"

"I have 3 questions:
First, why did the USA invade Iraq without the support of the UN?
Second, why are you President when Kerry got more votes?

And third, what happened to Osama Bin Laden?"

Just then the bell rings for recess.

George Bush informs the kiddies that they will continue afterrecess.

When they resume George says, "OK, where were we? Oh that's right --- question time. Who has a question?"

A different little boy puts up his hand. George points him out and asks him what his name is?

"Steve"

" And what is your question, Steve?"

"I have 5 questions:
First, why did the USA invade Iraq without the support of the UN?
Second, why are you President when Kerry got more votes?
Third, what happened to Osama Bin Laden?
Fourth, why did the recess bell go 20 minutes early?!
And fifth, where is "Bob"??!!!!

Answer 6

You think maybe if we had blown the hell out of osama instead of worrying if the lawyers would approve it some of the other idiots would have decided to blow up their own and leave us the hell alone?

Come on now, if we just be nice to them they will go away. Bush was somehow culpable for stuff that happened in Cuba in the 60s.

I do wonder about the price of gas suddenly going way down just before election though.... hummm maybe he scared the hell out of them.. but will they go right back up after the election?

Answer 7

Well thats debateable. True that their predecessors do affect the situation of the country but Bush didn't have to attack Iraq, he did that from his on inititive and now he wants to attack Iran which is also he own idea. You can blame the people before him but he is accountable for his own actions and decisions.

Answer 8

You must keep in mind that congress is already intact when the president is nominated. The president is actually "the fall guy" and is being led by the strings of congress. You can't actually blame the president himself for all that goes wrong. All people will never agree on everything.

Answer 9

Well the President is only one person. They have teams of people who advise them, write the speeches, everything. They are a figurehead who seem to take all the blame. Any president is going to be criticized for something. There is so much that the Government has to deal with with, it can't be easy.

Answer 10

I think Bush is using this country trying make history...he was never cut out to be a President..why people believe in him..is beyond my understanding... hes smart ***.ss looks tell it all..if he is getting his way or doing what is told>>>