Now that we are talking about better and worse presidents as judged by a wide variety of historians it is interesting to see that since the beginning of the 20th century the only president that received a lower score than GW Bush was Warren Harding (1921-23). That's pretty bad, here is the source.
His score of 34 was snuggly found between Benjamin Harrison (1889-1893) 33 and Zachary Taylor (1849-1850) 35 Even Nixon looked like a saint in comparison. I am using an I pad and am not very good at copying and pasting, check out Wikipedia's Historical rankings of the Presidents of the United States. No political bias here folks, Ronald Reagan did fairly well as I suspected that he would. What do you guys think?
So, I guess history has already weighed in its judgement on 'the decider'?
I believe each president has a purpose. GWB had that reputation for being the typical cowboy-type Texan. I do believe if we had not had a president willing to pursue Al Queda/Bin Laden with the extreme fervency that he did, we would have been attacked again and repeatedly. (And that's really all I have to say about that. )
From March 13, 2002 press conference, six months after 9/11:
Q: But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?
BUSH: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.
“The death of bin Laden marks the most significant achievement to date in our nation’s effort to defeat Al Qaeda. … Today’s achievement is a testament to the greatness of our country and the determination of the American people. – President Barack Obama, announcing bin Laden’s death in East Room of the White House (May 1, 2011)
I think it was a great achievement too, but not because it was a great blow to Al Qaeda's performance capabilities, or their "standing" in the world. I believe "W's" (and the U.S.'s) war against Al Qaeda had already greatly reduced Bin Laden's Al Qaeda. I think it was a "significant" achievement for its symbolic value.
What do you think Pres. Obama's "significant achievement" meant?
Given Al Qaeda's spread into affiliated organizations - after their, (Bin Laden's Al Qaeda), actions were obstructed by U.S. efforts to capture him, and understanding that at the time of his death it was these affiliated Al Qaedas that were apparently the new primary threat to the world, do you agree with him that Bin Laden's death was a significant blow for the defeat of Al qaeda?
Did a survey of the worst President in US History.
GW Bush won it hands down with 7 votes, Nixon seccond with two votes
Did Al Qaeda disappear when Bin Laden was killed?
Didn't Valerie Jarret give the kill order?
Didn't they have to get Obama off the golf course for the Press Conference and the shooting?
No, no more than the US did when Kennedy was killed.
No - she wasn't even there.
Probably, for the press conference - do you expect him to live in the office? The shooting of course happened while on the course and without his immediate knowledge.
The truth is that Al Qaeda was NEVER run by Bin Laden, he was a big part of but had no plenary power over Al Qaeda operations, ever. Al Qaeda has grown in reach and scope since Bin Laden's murder(using the terminology of the lefty)
It must have been Leon Panetta, he isn't a wimp.
No, I expect him to cut into his golf,basketball,vacation schedule to attend a few national security briefings, however, especially during a time of global upheaval fostered by his abject inattention.
He did not have total power, no. Just the ability to get done whatever he wished. Indeed Al Qaeda has grown since the death (not murder, that is a legal term and not applicable to active enemy combatants) of bin Laden and we will face them again one day. Such groups cannot be wiped out without cooperation with all countries.
It wasn't Panetta either - it was one (or more) of the Seals with a finger on the trigger.
Ah. You do expect him to live in the office, ready for security briefings at the whim of the media.
Bin Laden's role was less then most believe, more like the president of a company with a board of directors and multiple vice presidents. Goals set, projects planned, budgets calculated, etc....
Well that is more or less true, the man with his finger on the trigger. However, can you imagine the stupidity of what those same men endure in Afghanistan with the ridiculous rules of engagement?
I expect him to do the job for which he was elected, much like his predecessors, even Clinton interrupted Monica for work.
Don't see the ROE as ridiculous on that mission. They have been, however, for our grunts over there; I've talked to too many of the soldiers to think otherwise.
Yes, and that job requires 100% of his time, doesn't it? Presidents are nothing but machinery, after all, and in no need of entertainment, exercise, sleep, etc. I don't like Obama, but don't require that of him, president or not. Every single one of our presidents have been of the homo sapien species, and needed time off from the job to maintain peak efficiency and productivity. People are just that way.
I don't believe that any president would allow an attack on the scale of 9-11 and not ardently pursue reprisals against those responsible. Bush just happened to be the sitting president at the time.
He was the sitting President who wanted Iraq and attacked Afghanistan and lost both.
by ib radmasters5 years ago
Remember, an accomplishment is something that actually results in something good happening for the US. Something that is being used and taken advantage by the people. It is not just passing bills, or starting plans that...
by Steven Escareno6 years ago
Okay, I know this probably isn't that big of a deal to some folks, but i thought i'd bring it up anyway. On the radio the other day, I was listening to two political analysts, and one of them still insists on...
by ahorseback19 months ago
Is it really true that President Obama has never visited the Normandy celebration of WWII ? Of the six times that An American president has NOT been to Normandy on the celebration day , all 6 of...
by TimTurner7 years ago
Most of you know I am very critical of Obama but it looks like he is going to send about 20,000 to 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan which is what needs to be done. At least, that is the rumor on the street.For...
by pisean2823116 years ago
does it matter to general americans that whether bin laden gets captured or not?..if yes are americans ready to keep usa army in afghanistan for time till bin laden gets captured?
by My Esoteric3 years ago
One of President Bush's arguments for invading Iraq was the strong Hussain-al Qaeda connection. The anti-Iraq invasion group said there was only very skimpy evidence of that and much stronger evidence that such an...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.