George Bush Jr is the worst president!!
For everyone who thinks Carter and Clinton are the worst presidents because of Bin Laden and such......Continue to read. Ronnie Regan released mentally ill people from institutions in the 80's which made the homeless rate go up, and then of course there was the iran contra scandal but here is some more on Regan and the beginning of Bin Laden
During his presidency Reagan was supplying weapons technology and support to Saddam Hussein - a Reagan ally at the time. Hussein would later use this technological expertise to kill thousands of Kurds with chemical weapons at Halabja, in northern Iraq.
And it only gets better. Ronald Reagan, in effect, created Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. During the 1980's, Reagan funneled billions of dollars in support to Mujahadeen rebels fighting the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Much of this money went to bin Laden, who used it, in addition to his own money, to create a network of fighters that later became al-Qaeda.
As for the Iran Hostage situation with Jimmy Carter....There was an investigation into Ronald Reagan and George Sr. that the hostages themselves asked for. There was evidence and a strong belief that Ronnie and George had made a deal involving arms that the hostages not be released in October 1980 when Jimmy Carter almost had it acomplished, but to hold them until Reagan was elected president.
Representatives of Ronald Reagan’s Republican presidential campaign secretly negotiate with Iran to delay the release of American hostages to gain political advantage during the election. This is what many of the hostages themselves believe.
Our government is corrupt, and George Jr is the worst president in history. His own father admitted that during desert storm he withdrew quickly because he knew there was no easy exit.
2007-05-28 13:59:20
·
answer #1
·
answered by BBO 1
·
3⤊
1⤋
No, the worst president all time is Harding, the man had sex in the closet with a girl underage and people think he was poisoned by his wife., He was popular in office but unsuccessful in making things happen, a lot scandals happened during his tenure. Debt- isnt a bad thing nor a good thing, its a thing we need. Democrats are agreeing to the bailout, and the Democrats have to apporve the debt rasiing, so they should take the blame, they havve the alibity to reduce the debt or make it bigger Defict is becuase of imblacned trade with countires, China has been manipulating trade with countries and oil has been the concern. Democrat Senate has the albitiy to change this, they of course set the deflcit Dollar is decreased by the interest rate, in order to increase the value we must bailout wall street, the dollar creates more jobs if its cheaper, more stuff beocmes affordable for comapanies. In order to stimulate growth, the feds have been lowering the rates, now with the bailout they wont be lowering the rates Job growth, the population changes so comparing to any era is not wise, how can we compare 200 million people now with 1 million people in 1776 or about 20 million about in 1800s? Congress has to agree to allow the debt to conitnue, and debt is needed in order to grow, These problems existed b4 he took office, its been a problem since the 70s with the oil crisis Debt is a source of getting funds without using our tax dollar to do stuff and use our tax dollars to do services for us
2016-05-20 01:58:30
·
answer #2
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
No. I can say without a shadow of a doubt that he is a man of ethics dealing with sedition and unpatriotic people under difficult circumstances.
The same can be said for all our Former Presidents, like Former President Clinton, or Former President Carter.
Disagreeing with a President's policies and goals does not mitigate sedition, even though sedition is no longer illegal.
It may be covered by free speech, but so is the speech of those like me who wish to state that your constant efforts to undermine our President in the middle of a war (vs. opposing his policies, which is a very different thing) is contemptible.
Oh, me? I'm a democrat. Proud to be an American, first, a political party member, second.
2007-05-28 13:25:50
·
answer #3
·
answered by mckenziecalhoun 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
Depends on your views. You can pick any of them apart according to your likes and dislikes. One thing learned long ago is when you are in a leadership role, you can not please everybody. What you hear about Bush or heard about Clinton is very much based on the opposite party trying to discredit. To me it is six of one, half a dozen of the other. Career politicians will do anything including lying to defeat the other party. A lot of what you hear is just this and biased, money hungry news media. It is past time we the people, the true owners of this country, speak up and demand a better government then what we have. The majority of legal citizens must be heard.
2007-05-28 13:29:42
·
answer #4
·
answered by wjenningssr 2
·
3⤊
0⤋
Short of Fra Savoronola, Henri Christophe, or Calcescu, ( I leave out the rest of the 20th C dictators ) , Bush is racing to be one of the most enept and venal Presidents in the US or leaders in the world at large. He's better than Idi Amin, ( sort of ) and better than Mugabe of Zimbabwe, ( sort of ) , but he is SUCH a miserable excuse for a president that even his own party is begining to disown him. Bush is a con artist shill - fronting for corporations and a rich oligarchy that hides behind the scene. Sheeple still listen, but even some of them are becoming skeptical and restive. If he is a " good " persident its because he can deflect attention from where power REALLY lies. Hes kind of like a rodeo clown waving at the media to distract it.
2007-05-28 13:40:36
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
I have only been alive through the past 10 so I cannot answer about in the history of the US. However if I had to pick the worst in my life time it would be" bed time for Bonzo " Reagan.
2007-05-28 13:34:41
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
Bush is pretty damn bad, but not the worst. The worst were Hoover, Harding and NIxon. But, Bush is in the same league as those guys.
2007-05-28 15:51:56
·
answer #7
·
answered by Mr. Main Event 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
Count me for a No response.
I can say positive for President Bush.
2007-05-30 16:32:07
·
answer #8
·
answered by Living In Korea 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
Nope, I'll take him any day over some guy in the White house dropping his pants for the quick ********. Nancy Regan refused to let.... you know who talk at her husbands funeral, said he had disgraced the White House. Good for her, it means there are still a few left with morals.
2007-05-28 14:07:15
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
I still think Woodrow Wilson was worse, but Bush comes in second.
2007-05-28 13:24:24
·
answer #10
·
answered by Jesus W. 6
·
1⤊
1⤋