Is George W. Bush and his administration more corrupt and dishonest than the Richard M. Nixon administration?

Question

Nixon and his administration was not as good at hubris, profiteering, and savage capitalism. Also, he could not get about the law; as is the case with GWB.

Answer 1

Although there are almost daily scandals, I fear we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg. Nixon and bush's administrations are both extremely corrupt. Time will tell.

Answer 2

John Dean, Nixon WH Counsel, certainly thinks so...

George W. Bush as the New Richard M. Nixon: Both Wiretapped Illegally, and Impeachably;
Both Claimed That a President May Violate Congress' Laws to Protect National Security
By JOHN W. DEAN
----
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20051230.html

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/031600023X/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-2586489-3112630#reader-link

Google John Dean George Bush and find hundreds of strories. John Dean writes for Findlaw

Nixon was a really smart guy that didn't really like smart people around. GW is not as smart but has surrounded himself with smart villains-Rove, Cheney & the rest.

Answer 3

There is corruption in every admin. Difficult to decide the difference between the two of these.
The all time leaders in the corruption Hall of Fame, however are the Clinton administration. They were the real heavyweights.

Answer 4

There is nowhere near as much - and possibly no - impropriety in the Bush administration.

Clinton may have come close to Nixon, or in fact topped him.

Answer 5

N O!!!!!!!!Think Carter and Clinton Administrations!!!!!!!!!

Answer 6

Who would you rather go with, a realist like GWB or a cut and run like scarry Kerry?

Answer 7

What many of my fellow Americans seem to forget is that these terrorists, whether operating in Iraq or elsewhere, cannot defeat the United States the way, for example, the Allies systematically incapacitated the Germans' ability to wage war during World War II by destroying armies, obliterating factories and even bombing population centers.

No, the only way the terrorists can defeat the United States is by convincing us that we are defeated — by creating a perception of calamity in our minds that does not exist in reality.

In a war like this, waged with fear on one side and with freedom on the other, the most crucial trait for the leader of the free world is steadfastness — the ability to withstand temporary fluctuations in military situations and popular opinion to ensure long-term success.

In this regard, Bush has demonstrated the necessary character of perseverance and political courage. He went as far as to state, "So be it," even if the war were to cost him the second term. Bush has demonstrated clearly that he views the eventual victory in the war to be more important than his own political future.

How does Kerry fare on this account? Kerry has shifted his position on the war based on changing popular and editorial sentiments, calling it, at various times, necessary, unnecessary, what needed to be done and a colossal mistake. Even now, as he calls Iraq "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time," he claims, somehow, that he will be able to attract a recalcitrant France and Germany to come to our aid.

A president so afflicted with self-doubt and prevarication cannot win the war on terror. Instead of strengthening the conviction of Americans to persevere, such a president will fall victim to the shifting sentiments that inevitably occur with temporary reverses in war. A president who slavishly follows such momentary lapses of popular resolve creates a situation ideally suited for our adversary, who operates in the realm of fear and terror.

In 216 B.C., a great terror struck the Roman world. In a single battle of Cannae, not far from Rome, Hannibal and the Carthaginians annihilated the larger Roman forces. Over 40,000 Roman soldiers perished. It was the greatest defeat in Roman history. The city of Rome was panic-stricken. The people rioted in the streets and politicians called for immediate peace negotiations with Hannibal, who was expected at the gates of Rome any moment. Many thought of fleeing the city.

Yet, steadier Roman leaders prevailed; they rallied the people and steeled them for a grim war and went on to vanquish their mortal foe in the end.

We are now likewise at our crossroads. Will we select someone as our president who is more likely to reflect and magnify transitory popular panic, or someone who has demonstrated that he will willingly sacrifice his popularity for our victory in war?

I do not agree with Bush on everything, but because I know the choice is crystal clear on this issue of life and death, my vote is for him.

Answer 8

Nope.

Answer 9

No but I do feel you're gullible enough to believe it due to being a liberal.

Answer 10

don't think so.....bush is just doing what clinton passed on, and should have done.his self.