jump to last post 1-2 of 2 discussions (15 posts)

George W. bush among lower ranking presidents from composite historian

  1. Credence2 profile image79
    Credence2posted 4 years ago

    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'?

  2. profile image0
    Beth37posted 4 years ago

    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. smile)

    1. PrettyPanther profile image81
      PrettyPantherposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      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)

      1. GA Anderson profile image80
        GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        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?


        1. Castlepaloma profile image76
          Castlepalomaposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          Did a survey of the worst President in US History.
          GW Bush won it hands down with 7 votes, Nixon seccond with two votes

          1. Credence2 profile image79
            Credence2posted 4 years agoin reply to this

            There are former presidents that I would have to say were worst than GW Bush, most of the presidents after Polk and before Lincoln and Andrew Johnson, U.S. Grant and Warren Harding.

      2. profile image59
        retief2000posted 4 years agoin reply to this

        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?

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. profile image59
            retief2000posted 4 years agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. profile image59
                retief2000posted 4 years agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  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.

    2. Credence2 profile image79
      Credence2posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. rhamson profile image77
        rhamsonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        He was the sitting President who wanted Iraq and attacked Afghanistan and lost both.

        1. Castlepaloma profile image76
          Castlepalomaposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          The war on drugs has been going on for 75 years and the prison and war complex just keep on growing larger. Plus authority now kill more people than the criminals do.