English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

i know, he will probably go down as one of the worst

but i know that some people definitly classify him with hitler and fascist who i think should be deported to france

but, do you really think bush is worse than nixon, lbj, or hell, even clinton?

2007-11-27 10:36:34 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

if gore was elected we would still be in the middle east, maybe not iraq, but eventually probably, because terrorist still wouldve blown up the wtc

unless you are a stupid conspirator

2007-11-28 13:11:16 · update #1

21 answers

Of course Bush is worse than Clinton because Clinton brought great peace and prosperity and he did a good job with our economy. Under Clinton's presidency, we didn't have the enormous deficit we have now with Bush. Sure, Bush is a horrible president, but I'll tell you who's REALLY worse than Bush. FDR, for committing one of the gravest violations of civil liberties by sending thousands of Japanese Americans to internment camps and Truman, for killing thousands of innocent Japanese civilians in the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

2007-11-27 10:49:17 · answer #1 · answered by Maid Mesmera 3 · 2 3

Why should he go down as one of the worst?

First of all, can anyone say Jimmy Carter?
or Bill Clinton?

And what about Abraham Lincoln? The nation divided and went to war during his presidency. Why isn't he cast in the realm of worst presidents? Because of slavery? Well, I've got news for you, abolition wasn't exactly the view of the majority of the nation at the time. What was Lincoln's purpose for going to war? Sure, the South fired on Fort Sumter first but couldn't he have just used diplomacy to diffuse the situation? One of many reasons for the Civil War was to set other men free. Isn't that what we are doing in Iraq? Or don't you think Iraqis deserve the same chance at the freedoms we not only enjoy, but take for granted.

Sure, the history lesson may be irrelevant to many here, but what I'm trying to get across is that how a president is viewed by history is based on opinion. Some say Jimmy Carter was a great president and others (like me) say he's the worst. It depends on how you view how he performed the job, his vision, and your agreement or disagreement with his beliefs.

For the record, I'm not implying Lincoln was a bad president. Quite the contrary. He fought what some thought was an unnecessary war and reunified the country, despite the naysayers in both the North and South.

2007-11-27 10:55:37 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 4

You don't know that for sure.
Lincoln was consider a monkey by the Democrats and look how we think he is so great.

I think the worst president we ever had was FDR.
1. He has mail censor going in and out of the country.
2. The press was censor from bad news from the front at the begining of WWII.
3. He turn a ship load of Jews to go back and face the Holocaust.
4. He rounded up all the people from Japan and put them into camps.

You just know like Bush because he won 2 elections against liberals.

2007-11-27 10:45:42 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2 3

I think Bush is worse than most of the ones you listed if not all of them....when Bush lied many people lost their lives and families were torn apart.

Nixon and Clinton were bad because they shouldn'tve lied but when they lied nobody's life was at stake. I just find it hard to believe that Bush ignored Congress and didn't ask them to go to war first and he just did it anyway, and then he lied about WMDs but yet he wasn't impeached for misleading the nation and the government. I guess he didn't get in trouble because "Woody" was still in his pants.

And the people who attacked our country weren't even Iraqis to begin with. Yeah Iraq needed help but it's also their business. They didn't ask if we would help them. It's also impossible to force beliefs on somebody else that they don't believe. And forget about our country ever being in the green again money-wise because it won't happen. We are now being forced to borrow from China to support this stupid war. Other countries are pulling their troops out because they don't think that their people should be there. Well I don't think our people should be their either fighting for the democracy of an uncivilized region where violence outweighs common sense. And what do we have to show for it?..Yeah a few happy Iraqis and thousands of American children who will never ever get to know mommy or daddy.


*And for Gumby up there, at least Lincoln didn't bring other countries in to shoot his battles for him. And he didn't ask his daddy who he should go to war with. Lincoln had plenty of support for ending slavery. But the southerners who had the slaves also had a lot of money (because of the slaves) and they didn't want to lose the money or end up having to do the work themselves. Lincoln was a great president. He made a lot of people see that what they were doing was wrong...that it's not ok to OWN people and that people aren't THINGS that can be bought. I don't know where this country would be if it weren't for him.

2007-11-27 10:58:11 · answer #4 · answered by iceyblue1986 4 · 3 2

Yes! Because instead of using his power for the good of the people, he's using it to secure his legacy. He's said this out of his own mouth. Our own borders aren't secure, yet he's trying to tell other countries how to rule. The president is elected of the people, by the people, and for the people. This is something he doesn't even care about. Bush is what you call high-handed. Using power without thought for the rights or feelings of others. When the Democrats took over Congress, he said he will veto every bill they put on his desk, until he gets what he wants. If that isn't the worse, I don't know what is.

2007-11-27 10:46:46 · answer #5 · answered by eagleman 2 · 3 3

He's got my vote.
I hated Nixon with a passion; and even though I was only a child, I was not overly fond of Johnson.
I won't argue the merits and demerits of the Clinton presidency here; I'll just say that I feel there were good and bad things about it and be done with it. I do not feel he belongs on the list of "Worst in History", however.
Bush wins; hands down...Nixon a close second.
Edit: oops! I forgot Carter! I am a registered democrat, and I refused to vote for him. Enough said.

2007-11-27 10:43:10 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 5 4

Not even close.
At least in Iraq, Bush is letting the generals run the war and is removing them if they don't do their jobs.
Vietnam, LBJ and Robert McNamara called the shots, and the result was a total clusterf###!
Also George Bush was re-elected. Jimmie Carter was soundly defeated in his quest for re-election, and his opponent, Ronald Reagan , didn't even use the strongest tool he had against Jimmie Carter, the Iran hostage situation.
The worst? let's let history judge that.

2007-11-27 10:44:36 · answer #7 · answered by TedEx 7 · 4 4

Let's remember that Florida gave Bush his first presidency with the help of FOX news...He didn't earn anything in his first time around. If Gore was in we wouldn't be in this SH-T!

2007-11-27 11:19:25 · answer #8 · answered by John W 3 · 3 2

I like Bush.. he rocks

2007-11-30 15:38:39 · answer #9 · answered by ♥xChannel. 3 · 0 0

Jimmy Carter is considered the worst president.

2007-11-27 10:41:06 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4 4

fedest.com, questions and answers