Remember, George Washington only had to fight the British. George W. Bush has to fight a war on terror. Fighting a war on a concept is much more difficult.
2007-03-17 10:17:09 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
I can't believe some people actually think this is a serious question.
2007-03-17 10:26:22 · update #1
Washington worked to create the country and defend the Constitution.
Bush seems to be working to eviscerate the Constitution and destroy what this country was founded to protect. All in the name of keeping the people safe from a concept that has been around since the dawn of civilization.
So, it depends on your definition of "better". Which do you think is a good thing, and which do you think is a bad thing?
2007-03-17 10:20:35 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
George Washington
2007-03-17 17:26:30 · answer #2 · answered by KOI 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
George Washington
2007-03-17 17:24:11 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Washington
2007-03-17 19:11:10 · answer #4 · answered by Mike J 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
George Washington had a ragtag army of farmers with a lack of food and weapons against a vastly superior British force. His idea was also a war on a concept--the concept of freedom and self-government. His army lack shoes and housing. "Only had to fight the British ". You say that as though it was nothing. He fought the strongest nation on Earth at that time who also had hired German mercenaries--the Hessians. We had some advisory help from the French, and the French-always the enemies of Britain--harassed the British at sea. I'm not interested in being critical of Bush (there's plenty of that and it's unnecessary for your question), but I'm amazed you think Washington's effort was somehow easy.
2007-03-17 17:29:25 · answer #5 · answered by David M 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
George Washington wasn't a chickenhawk and actually fought in the field of battle first hand while George Bush went AWOL and got 2 DUI's. There isn't any comparison, and slandering George Washington is blasphemy coming out of your mouth. You should be ashamed no-nothing.
2007-03-17 17:24:00 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
George W Bush really had a difficult time convincing a bunch of fat Dorito eating morons to attack a country which had nothing to do with the slightly embarrassing deaths of 3000 people at the hands of a few religious nutters armed with box cutters. I guess he wins. As does his bank account.
2007-03-17 17:34:57 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
that is a difficult question to answer. One George has a lot of streets, parks, schools, our capitol city, and even a state named after him.
On the other hand, the other George has an entire line of canned baked beans named for him.
Based on that, I'd have to say it's a tie.
2007-03-17 23:45:16 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Only, if he did not fight the British we would not be the United States. And you cannot win a war on terror, what are we going to turn on the T.V. and they will say "We got them all"
2007-03-17 17:27:24 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
well as know one actually living was there when Washington was alive all they have to go by is other peoples opinions which may or may not be right, or embellished etc. so a difficult one really
got some advice from the french what history book did you get that one from, they were actively involved along with the Spanish. i think your history books have been doctored, iv even read that Americans think they won the 1812 war when everything iv read says it was a stalemate, the USA declared war on the British and tried to get Canada, so unless Canada is now the 51st state exactly what did they win go read a real history book and stop watching fox for god sake
2007-03-17 17:22:48 · answer #10 · answered by bruce m 3 · 1⤊ 4⤋