How would you compare G.W. Bush with A. Lincoln as a president?

Question

They both started an illegal war base on a lie. Then changed the purpose of the war when it became unpopular.

Answer 1

I would say they are very similar indeed.

They both did away with habeas corpus, having opponents thrown in prison.

They both had/have unpopular administrations, with the majority of the people unhappy with their performance.

Answer 2

You're right, and you're wrong. I can't equate Lincoln's decision to hold the country together by force with Bush's invasion of Iraq to control oil supplies and get a foothold in the Middle East, for imperialistic purposes.

From a legal standpoint, they both trampled all over the Constitution, yes. But...slavery WAS a pivotal issue. Those racial hatreds still run deep in our southern states today. It's not a lie to say that the American Civil War was about slavery; it just wasn't totally, or even primarily, about slavery, though you'd have to have polled every soldier fighting on either side to prove it. Their reasons for fighting would probably speak far better to the point.

Lincoln knew that he was breaking the law to hold the county together; it plainly weighed heavily upon him, by all accounts of the man. Even his detractors grudgingly admired him. His Presidency saw him careworn to an extreme, and he died for his beliefs.

Bush doesn't seem to care what laws he breaks; he's convinced of his own righteousness. He seems determined to do what he wants, despite that fact that his country is all but screaming at him to listen to reason. And while a lot of other people are dying for his beliefs, he doesn't even give up vacation time.

I can't fault your logic, but the truth doesn't end where your question leaves off. There's no comparing the two, in my opinion; Dubya doesn't deserve even to be mentioned in the same breath.

Answer 3

Your premise is false. Lincoln did not start the war. Who fired the first shot? Not the union. Lincoln reacted to defend himself and to save the union. he also did not change the meaning of the war- he added another meaning. Took it to a new level, so to speak.

Another thing worth noting as a difference is that Lincoln fired his first Sec. of war after he proved to bin incapable soon after the war started, hiring somebody who had a very good reputation and was a skilled manager. Bush stuck to his sec. Def. despite the fact that he had screwed everything up. Lincoln also welcomed many different opinions. Instead of hiring yes men, he hired presidential contenders from both parties including all of his primary opponents for the republican nomination. As a result, he had the most diverse cabinet in US history, not just a bunch of no name Yes men. every man in his cabinet believed they could do a better job as president, at least at first.

To compare Bush to Lincoln is to compare a mentally retarded person to Albert Einstein.

oh, and Lincoln was constitutionally permitted to suspend habeas corpus, as that can only be done in times of "Rebellion or Invasion" Bush wasn't. big difference between saving the nation and undermining the constitution of this nation.

Answer 4

No one hates Bush enough to assassinate him, therefore Lincoln must have been a worse president of the two. Also as a link between the two presidents, Bush's oil business provides fuel for Lincoln's Continental cars.

Answer 5

That's true, but Lincoln won his war

Answer 6

I wouldn't compare the two of them. That's disgracing the memory of one of our greatest presidents - Lincoln.

Answer 7

I agree with UGA [the first answer]. Very well said.

It's difficult to compare the two though considering the situations they faced were different.

Answer 8

What a shame, he did not get to smear Bush more. Better luck on your next stupid question.

Answer 9

Perhaps, but Lincoln had a vision beyond crony evil greedism and ruling the world with sadistic pathological liars twist.

Answer 10

george bush= murderer
abe lincoln = murdered