Do you think the Bush administration will go down as one of our Nation's worst administrations?

Question

My friend HATES the Bush administartion. He swears it will go down as one of our countries worst. I agree to. My parents were furious when Bush won office again. I don't even know why we are still in Iraq. Anyway, what do you think?

Answer 1

Yes, the worst and most blatantly corrupt.

Answer 2

To be honest, probably not. I know this answer's not going to earn thumbs ups or play to the crowd, but Bush is probably just going to fade into history as a mediocre, lackluster president whom neither conservatives nor liberals will remember fondly. For example, Nixon was far more corrupt, and Lyndon B. Johnson responsible for far, far many more American deaths in Vietnam. Once he gets out of office and there's a new president to criticize (either Republican or Democrat, it won't matter) Bush will hardly be the media-magnet he is today. Most Americans today don't even have a clue what happened under Eisenhower's presidency, even though over 35,000 American lives were lost in the Korean War. Can we really say it won't be the same for Bush in 50-75 years?

Answer 3

It really all hinges on how Iraq plays out. Because, it's possible, (if Iraq becomes secure) that it will change that entire region for the better. Now if it doesn't, which will be the case if the next president decides to pull out; well, the entire region will crumble. But I don't think he'll go down in history as one of the worst presidents. I mean, the death totals aren't anywhere near Vietnams, yet we don't consider Lynden Johnson or John F. Kennedy to be among the worst presidents in history (the ones that got us in that mess).
And when you look at it against the corruption of the Clinton administration (Sandy Berger stealing classified documents, Clinton himself committing perjury, and pardoning Mark Rich), history may well remember President Bush very favorably. I mean the Clinton folks love to hang their hat on how great the economy was, while the military was gutted and terrorism was left to grow culminating in 9/11, but the economy is even better under President Bush. In spite of the catastrophes that would cripple other nations, we have prospered.
Thus I think history will look on President Bush as just another president. Of course, I'm not in academia, which is overwhelmingly liberal, so I won't be someone teaching history. So in that regard, I guess he would be viewed as the worst, because a Bush hating liberal will most likely be teaching the history class.

Answer 4

traditionally, interior the form of conflict crimes being committed, the Commander (thus the Commander-in chief) can legally be held to blame, whether he has no direct involvement. This stems from the somewhat infamous (in my opinion) Yamashita determination in conflict trials following WW II, wherein the jap commonplace Yamashita, even in spite of the undeniable fact that he surely ordered the launch of POW's held decrease than his command, became convicted and hanged because of the fact of excesses via troops decrease than his command against the two civilians and POW's. He became no longer even latest on the time, and truthfully quickly ordered no longer something of the style. decrease than this precedent, an attempt became made, interior the previous due 1960's, to attempt President Nixon for the My Lai massacre. those in touch have been a team of Viet Nam Vets, many disabled consequently of wounds, who have been understandably peeved over a number of their own being tried collectively as others above weren't. by the way, their view became that collectively as they understood the movements at My Lai, given the circumstances, they could no longer condone those movements. Ergo, they via no ability supported what became completed, yet objected to the 'get out of gaol loose' enjoying cards apparently held via some. It has additionally been held decrease than the UCMJ that a commanding officer is to blame for the movements of his troops, whether no longer latest, considering that he/she could have taken all steps to verify their suited behaviour. a pair of impressive trials in touch a 1st Cav branch officer in, i think of , 1967, and likewise a Marine officer in 1966 it particularly is extraordinarily conceivable, decrease than the Yamashita precedent, to attempt Bush and co over shown conflict crimes - if important information arises of direct involvement or collusion, or probable wicked indifference, expenditures are an extremely real threat.

Answer 5

The U.S. going into Iraq is only one blunder which will make this administration one of the worst. Other factors are Bush's extreme cronyism in making political appointments and fulfilling contracts, its curtailment of the privacy and civil rights granted under the U.S. Constitution to fight terrorism, and its financial irresponsibility to leave the U.S. with astounding national debt.

I don't even think we have begun to find out all the rot this administration has initiated.

The Atlantic, an excellent political and current events publication, had a short analysis a while back in which it demonstrated how long it takes U.S. society to roll out of the mistakes of a particular administration. Nixon was considered to be the worst for it took our society 30 years to undo his administration's mistakes. Carter's mistakes took 10 years. The article quoted a historian, who thought it would be take the U.S. somewhere between Nixon's and Carter's legacies, to undo Bush's damage.

Answer 6

Certainly one of the worst - Bush's father also ignored domestic issues, and invaded Iraq, but the key difference is that 43 has trashed all the standards of ethics in his quest for power. Even before 9/11, he was talking about the need for "strong leadership." I personally do not believe the Presidency needed to be strengthened at all, and now it has virtually supplanted the other two branches of government. To what end? I thought the system of checks and balances was rather ingenious. Now we're disgusted with all three branches, thanks in large part to Dubya. But there are other ethical questions, from domestic spying to negotiating a North American Union to leasing our ports and infrastructure, etc., etc. I could go on all night, but I can't believe anyone really thinks this is an imporvement over the form of government we used to have. Unless you're in the top 1% of income brackets...

Answer 7

Hmm, on the plus side we have a robust economy and a decent effort protecting the homeland. On the negative side we have a horrid immigration policy, no articulate energy strategy and a mess in Iraq.

Oh wait, this question was clearly intended for those drinking the kool-aid, and not for objective thinkers. My bad.

Answer 8

I think it will be a close race between Lyndon B. Johnson and George W. Bush.

At present, it is too close to call, but GWB still has 17 months to take a decisive lead. If I were a betting man, I'd put my money on GWB.

Answer 9

No! Bill Clinton put a lock an that one...he even beat out Nixon. Not an easy task. Only Hillary can save him from being worst ever...lets hope it doesn't come to that!!

We are still in Iraq because there are people there that want to kill us, or more specifically want to and have some means to kill us. Would you prefer we fight our enemies on our own shores, or flying more planes into our buildings? Please grow up, and realize that there are people out there that want to kill everyone in the United States. Bill Clinton knew this and did nothing to prevent it. President Bush was tasked with the aftermath and has been protecting our country ever since.

Answer 10

I've seen more than once a highly educated government analyst, when prompted enough, admit they believe the Bush administration is THE single worst administration, not because they dislike him, but because of his repeated mistakes and blunders. Not to mention all the bad policy but 911 happened on his watch and he completely screwed up in Iraq. Theres also the scandals and people that he appointed screwing up.

For years to come he's going to be labeled the worst or mercifully one of the worst, but for the sake of national pride, like previous crap presidents, in the future after he dies he'll be painted as a hero and all the dirt and incompetence will be buried.

Answer 11

I think it would be between the Nixon administration and the current one for worst administration. I think they'd have to do an economic and social breakdown to see which was worse. Heads up though, make sure you vote in 2008. The next president is going to have a tough clean up job ahead.