2006-11-16 07:39:59 · 22 answers · asked by Kirey Weigstag 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I don't think many serious historians will consider him to be anywhere near that famously bad, but he is actually definitely in the running for the worst president in American history (link 1, below).
After all, if you look at the huge blunders that have caused other presidents to be considered to be the worst in American history, it's not too hard to find an analogue that the most recent Bush has also committed. Consider the overt corruption, the exposed illegal activities, the erroneous wars, the devisive name-calling... all of these FACTS and matters of public record.
In truth, I'm actually rooting for him to get the title. I think it would be interesting to live in the time of someone who might so famously go down in history. I'm a little disappointed that he lost congress' help. But we still have two more years...
2006-11-16 07:53:20 · answer #1 · answered by Doctor Why 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Well let's see, while there is an arguement over the balance of the "right to life" issue, like if pulling the baby halfway out and sucking it brains out anytime before natural birth is legal, Bush supports the U.S, Constitution and Bill of Rights, and with exception of "holy roman emperor" (you might as well say "all Catholics" if you are on a religous bender), the others butcher humans, their own citizens, at will and for pleasure, merely to hold power. Castro's innovative approach at putting all HIV/AIDs people in restricted communities has stopped the AIDs epidemic in his country but you don't here the liberals cheering him for that. Kim Jong is using "dwarves" or any humans he feels are "degenerate" as human guinea pigs in his biowarfare program. Saddam Hussein killed Kurds by the thousands, so many people disappeared or were tortured and executed unde rhim that teh people in Iraq don't pay anywhere as much attention to the violence there today as CNN does. Hitler didn't just send people to their deaths in concentration camps, he also brutalized every part of the world that fell under his influence, and made war inevitable that cost hundreds of thousands of lifes of soldiers and civilians on both sides, because he thought he was destined to rule the world. Today's Middle East imitators will only do the same. When the 1974 elections led toi a democrat victory and US runout of Vietnam, Pol Pot figured there was nothing to fear and began one of the bloodiest purges of fellow countrymen the world has ever seen. While Stalin was in control much longer than Lenin, on a daily ratio Lenin had more people murdered, or let's just say they "vaporized" and no one dared speak of them again. How any dimwitted idiots thought giving Stalin nuclear secrets would make the world a better place was living in the fantasy that life under Stalin was good yet oddly most of them never chose to go live there. Bush is mediocre, a guy who bumbled into the White House at the wrong time in history, no worse than Carter (who fumbled on Iran and now we're paying for it, and gave away the Panama Canal, which may cost us a naval defeat). But I'm glad and proud to live under his leadership and government, despite the many stupid things he has said or done because he thinks them best. But I can call him "stupid" and live to tell about it, I can also vote against him and his party without fearing for my safety or that of my family and friends. We don't need a violent uprising to change our government, we just show up on election day and vote. That is what makes the difference between being civilized and living in the Dark Ages.
2006-11-16 08:03:14 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot were all ecucated less than the Catholic device. Mao i'm not constructive about, he replaced into probable taught Confucianism or Taoism yet i fairly do not study about what he replaced into taught to have self assurance. Kom Jong il looks to were knowledgeable through the chinese, State faculties in his personal u . s . and at theUniversity of Malta {L-Università ta' Malta Motto: Ut Fructificemus Deo (Latin for "we could continually carry on fruit unto God") regularly taking place 1591} that is an elite and really Catholic agency. I heavily question if maximum persons of them were honestly atheists.
2016-11-24 22:56:37 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your question shows your ignorance of world affairs/history. Bush is in no way in line with any of those ruthless dictators you were able to name. He had the backing of the US Congress to wage this war, virtually 90% in fact. The only problem that I have with the White House is that they allowed it to become a Public Relations nightmare - they unfortunately did not stress enough that WMDs were found, about the fact that woman can vote in exactly 2 Middle Eastern countries now - Iraq & Afganistan, and that the atrocities once committed openly by Sadam are no longer being carried out by the government but by terrorists from other nations.
Which Holy Roman Emperor (pope?) do you refer to?
You should be more angry at your parents for not caring enough about your education to merely send you to public school.
2006-11-16 07:53:13 · answer #4 · answered by dlil 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Maybe Stalin, Hitler, and Kim Jong Il. It would depend on what holy roman emperor you're talking about, (surely not good ol' barbarossa).
However, at least fidel castro's heart is in the right place, and he will have a mixed legacy in history, Bush will not have a mixed legacy of any kind...
2006-11-16 07:59:35 · answer #5 · answered by John S 4 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Join the ranks of Hitler,Pol Pot and Stalin??
Even my liberal heart(and some what socialist) wouldn't put Bush
among them!!!
Americas and worlds worst modern leader perhaps..BUT HE IS NO STALIN..because he is not loved enough!!
2006-11-16 07:58:43 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
This question keeps going around... first off I am no fan of Bush by any means.. but to compare a not so intelligent President to psychotic mad men such as Hitler is over stepping it a bit
2006-11-16 07:49:19 · answer #7 · answered by katjha2005 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
What's wrong with the Holy Roman Emperors? They gave central Europe some measure of peace and stability for a thousand years.
2006-11-16 07:44:45 · answer #8 · answered by Woody 6 · 7⤊ 1⤋
Who has he killed for not agreeing with him.Most of Iraq's people are happy for their freedom. Saddam's people are not because they don't have their power anymore and other Islamic terrorists don't want freedom and democracy to spread. They teach hate to keep power.
2006-11-16 07:50:40 · answer #9 · answered by Fly Boy 4 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Um...since they have absolutely nothing in common, I'd have to say no.
What a silly question. Did you skip your medication today?
2006-11-16 07:48:53 · answer #10 · answered by FozzieBear 7 · 5⤊ 1⤋