In light of recent tragic events and Bush’s and his administrations response, his continually slumping numbers at the polls, his decisions with respect to Iraq and other issues and his perceived general neglect of domestic affairs, is it possible for Bush to be remembered in any other way but unfavorably?  More to the point, some have asked - Has any other President in history ever failed his country so miserably?  Thus, the topic at hand.  This one question came to me as I watched a news report where a comment was made that if the presidential elections were held today, Bush would unequivocally lose 100 to 1.  Then there was talk of his most remembered moments and most all were negative.  It is my hope to find out the general conclusion within our community here in this forum.  Thanks in advance for you time.


Edited to add: I rephrased the question.

My answer remains the same.  Definitely not!

I honestly cannot answer that seeing as I don't know enough about any of the others to make a proper judgement.

But heres what I think, based on what I've observed:
One of the worst: Quite Possibly (I voted yes)
The worst: No

If people (maybe not you though) think he's been the worst president of all time then they should tell us who they think was the best or some of the best. It would be nice to know the "yardstick" by which someone measures a good president or Bush for that matter.

I really think some people have such an irrational hatred of George Bush that it really doesn't matter what he does, it'll never be good enough or correct.

I voted "No".

I vote no.

I voted no also

I really think some people have such an irrational hatred of George Bush that it really doesn't matter what he does, it'll never be good enough or correct.



Like my mother. ::)



I voted no.

Most definitely YES!!!  I could list many things but I don't have time to write a book.



BTW, Welcome back, Hairspray.




Cat

No way! If we had sat back on our heels and not defended this country, like Kerry/Gore would've done, we'd be slaves to the terrorists right here in the USA >:(

I voted No. He's definitely not the best--not even close. But the worst? I don't think so.



Beth

No way! If we had sat back on our heels and not defended this country, like Kerry/Gore would've done, we'd be slaves to the terrorists right here in the USA >:(


The only time this country was attacked during Bush's presidency, better intelligence operations probably could've been used for defense, but they weren't. And then the administration promoted illogically excessive fear of the foreign extremists, which by definition is exactly what terrorists want.

I don't know enough about all of our presidents to judge is Bush is the  absolute worst president, but he's gotta be close. After all, Harding is usually ranked at the bottom simply for not being able to control his corrupt colleagues, and that's just one of many problems with this administration.

No way! If we had sat back on our heels and not defended this country, like Kerry/Gore would've done, we'd be slaves to the terrorists right here in the USA >:(


Oh yes, Kerry and Gore the anti-americans.

Ya know, I don't know all the words to the national anthem.. Better package me up with some semtex.


The only time this country was attacked during Bush's presidency, better intelligence operations probably could've been used for defense, but they weren't. And then the administration promoted illogically excessive fear of the foreign extremists, which by definition is exactly what terrorists want.

I don't know enough about all of our presidents to judge is Bush is the absolute worst president, but he's gotta be close. After all, Harding is usually ranked at the bottom simply for not being able to control his corrupt colleagues, and that's just one of many problems with this administration.


Not even 'better' intelligence.. just listening to the intelligence the administration had.

No he isn't the worst ever.. He damn sure is one of the worst though.

You want my yardstick, ok here he is.. William Jefferson Clinton.

Strongest US Economy Ever
Lowest Unemployment Rates for Years
US respected World Wide

But of course which Right Wing Christian Family Values  ::) Nut is gonna say.. "Oh he's awful, he got a BJ!"
::)

I don't like him. But I'm not sure if I'd say he's the worst. But one of the worst, as the title says? I think so. :-\\

And, don't forget, he's married to Hillary ;)


Ok that's unforgivable..

Of course, if you look at the Country Bush inheritied and the current state of the country you can see just How Low he's taken us in comparison to 5-6 years ago.

no

Since I've only been around for 29 years, I would say yes.

Bush the Second is in the bottom half of Presidents, but he's not as bad as, say, Carter or Ulysses S. Grant :P

Oh yes, Kerry and Gore the anti-americans.

Ya know, I don't know all the words to the national anthem.. Better package me up with some semtex.

Not even 'better' intelligence.. just listening to the intelligence the administration had.

No he isn't the worst ever.. He darn sure is one of the worst though.

You want my yardstick, ok here he is.. William Jefferson Clinton.

Strongest US Economy Ever
Lowest Unemployment Rates for Years
US respected World Wide

But of course which Right Wing Christian Family Values  ::) Nut is gonna say.. "Oh he's awful, he got a BJ!"
::)


There were things Bill Clinton couldn't do very well either. He shut down a lot of military bases and weapon stations which caused a great deal of unemployment. Yet, I won't be blind to the fact that he wasn't a strong president; he just had a way with words.

There were things Bill Clinton couldn't do very well either. He shut down a lot of military bases and weapon stations which caused a great deal of unemployment. Yet, I won't be blind to the fact that he wasn't a strong president; he just had a way with words.


True, he did get rid of a lot of Military bases, of course that saved Millions in the defence Budget.

And no, Bush is not the worst. Yet he's probably one of the most vehemently disliked presidents since Franklin Roosevelt, but how many people hate FDR nowadays?

True, he did get rid of a lot of Military bases, of course that saved Millions in the defence Budget.


and the good of that was....??

and the good of that was....??


There is more money in the budget to go elsewhere.

For instance.

Clinton closes 3 Military bases in California. There is now more money in the budget to, just a for instance here, build several cruise missiles that can be used in Bosnia.

True, he did get rid of a lot of Military bases, of course that saved Millions in the defence Budget.


yeah, that's probably why US interests were attacked by terrorists 3 times during his presidency.

There were things Bill Clinton couldn't do very well either. He shut down a lot of military bases and weapon stations which caused a great deal of unemployment. Yet, I won't be blind to the fact that he wasn't a strong president; he just had a way with words.



Many bases were closed under Reagan and George I. The military was also downsized at that time. I was in at that time I remember people leaving the military left and right.





Cat

yeah, that's probably why US interests were attacked by terrorists 3 times during his presidency.


::)

Alright, World Trade Centre in 1993 literally just a few weeks after his election.

Okalhoma City Bombing.. Oh come on, one nut working alone blows up a Government Building, like Clinton downsizing the Military had anything to do with that.

yeah, that's probably why US interests were attacked by terrorists 3 times during his presidency.


As opposed to today, when U.S. soldiers get attacked just about every day.
Or is the U.S. (by U.S. i mean the government) not interested in its soldiers?

::)

Alright, World Trade Centre in 1993 literally just a few weeks after his election.

Okalhoma City Bombing.. Oh come on, one nut working alone blows up a Government Building, like Clinton downsizing the Military had anything to do with that.




Wasn't one of our embassasies bombed during Clinton's presidency, as well?

This best/worst stuff usually doesn't fly.  I will say that I believe that when you consider, unemployment, internatioal relations, quality of life issues, that he will be at the lower end of the scale.

Wasn't one of our embassasies bombed during Clinton's presidency, as well?


Yes, and the USS Cole also...

Wasn't one of our embassasies bombed during Clinton's presidency, as well?


Yes your right.

In 1998 8 American's were killed when the Kenyan and Tanzanian Embassies were bombed.
There was no advanced warning and no real way to stop them happening. (car bombs)

Young Georgey seems to have a car bomb go off every week during his administration.

Clinton appropriated almost a Billion dollars to make structural improvements to US embassies around the world.. I'm yet to see what George has done.

As opposed to today, when U.S. soldiers get attacked just about every day.
Or is the U.S. (by U.S. i mean the government) not interested in its soldiers?


Yes, our soldiers have taken the pre-existing problem to their corner of the world, so that YOU and your family can enjoy a normal lifestyle without having to worry about getting bombed when you go to the mall, or to an amusement park, etc.  And you have no idea how grateful I am for that.. and how sorry I am when any American or innocent Iraqi lives are lost due to insurgents. 

Yes, our soldiers have taken the pre-existing problem to their corner of the world, so that YOU and your family can enjoy a normal lifestyle without having to worry about getting bombed when you go to the mall, or to an amusement park, etc.  And you have no idea how grateful I am for that.. and how sorry I am when any American or innocent Iraqi lives are lost due to insurgents. 


Let me get this straight Andrea.. your serious?

You think because US Troops are off getting blown up in Iraq (a country which really wasn't exactly an al qaueda (sp) hotbed before) there won't be attacks on the US again?

Oh PUHLEASE!

Yes your right.

In 1998 8 American's were killed when the Kenyan and Tanzanian Embassies were bombed.
There was no advanced warning and no real way to stop them happening. (car bombs)

Young Georgey seems to have a car bomb go off every week during his administration.

Clinton appropriated almost a Billion dollars to make structural improvements to US embassies around the world.. I'm yet to see what George has done.


How are we to ever know there was no advanced warning? Shall we question that...
Young Georgey can't help those who want to committ suicide and take innocent lives with them.

That's some feat for Clinton, but hardly getting to the "core" of the problem that we were on the eve of major terroist attacks that he so blithely avoided. I think many people have just turned their nose from the good that George has done, and automaticaly assumed the worst. One thing I have always kept in mind, with any president, is that none of them are going to do 100% of what they say they're going to do - to believe that would be really gullable.

How are we to ever know there was no advanced warning? Shall we question that...
Young Georgey can't help those who want to committ suicide and take innocent lives with them.

That's some feat for Clinton, but hardly getting to the "core" of the problem that we were on the eve of major terroist attacks that he so blithely avoided. I think many people have just turned their nose from the good that George has done, and automaticaly assumed the worst. One thing I have always kept in mind, with any president, is that none of them are going to do 100% of what they say they're going to do - to believe that would be really gullable.


That's true, we can't know there was no advanced warning, that applys to all similar acts acts.
Young Bill couldn't help those who wanted to comitt suicide and take innocent lives with them either.  ;)

That he so Blithely ignored. OH FOR CHRISTS SAKE! The clinton administration passed on vast amounts of information to the Bush administration about the possibility of Terrorist attacks in the US. Not only that, Bin Laden was considerd one of the biggest threats during the Clinton administration, Clintin ordered attacks on possible al quaeda hide outs and training facilities.
Also, specific information was handed down regarding the use of Planes as weapons.

To ignore these facts is ridiculous, but ridiculous and the Bush administration go hand in hand as that's exactly what they did. Ignore the Intelligence that was given to them.

George has done many good things here at Home, however his Forign Policy is godawful. I dare say a 5 year old could do better. Let's see.. if we piss off everyone, they're not gonna like us, if we're nice.. maybe they will. Doh! George, why couldn't you think of that  ::)

No Politician will do 10% of what they say they will, they just want your vote. It's not what they say they're going to do that's Important, it's what they actually do.

Yes.

Bush is a great president if you are rich, greedy, and care nothing for the future.  Otherwise, he's the worst president since Johnson...Andrew Johnson.  Of course, it's hard to compare the presidency prior to FDR to the modern presidency.
The Bush White House has no policy apparatus, foreign or domestic.  It has only a propaganda machine.  Bush is lead solely by the greed of corporations, defense contractors, and Wall Street.  Unquenchable greed dominates everything the man does.  He boasts of not reading the newspapers or finding out anything for himself.  He just listens to his whacky neo-con advisors who, like the Trotskyites of yore, are long on theory and short on reality.  He didn't listen to the generals or the joint-chiefs on Iraq, he let Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, and the rest of those clowns lead the way.  Not that it mattered.  Bush was going to attach Iraq no matter what.  War is healthy for the defense budget and other growing things.
Bush is on the same page as Reagan: make the rich richer, comfort the comfortable, afflict the afflicted, give your heart to Jesus and steal everything that isn't nailed down!  The difference is, Reagan could wheel and deal.  He was the "Great Communicator."  Bush is a dope who can scarcely string together a complete sentence.  Whether Reagan's policies were right or wrong, he knew how to maintain our allegiances, and he could deal with a sticky situation.  Reagan played hardball with Gorbachev, and got the job done.  I didn't agree with most of Reagan's foreign policy, but he knew the difference between brinkmanship and dinkmanship, between hardball and goofball.  Even George HW Bush knew how to put together an coalition of our allies to strengthen foreign relations and difray costs before going to war.  Dubya just said "yer either with us or ag'in us," and declared he didn't need to listen to anybody but Jesus.
Dubya's advice after 9/11: "Go shopping."
This president is without a doubt the most stupid, ham-fisted, other-directed, insensitive, tin-eared, spendthrift, foolhardy, naive, irresponsible, unaccountable, slippery, mealy-mouthed, and arrogant commander-in-chief since Andrew Johnson.
Welcome to the redneckocracy!

That's true, we can't know there was no advanced warning, that applys to all similar acts acts.
Young Bill couldn't help those who wanted to comitt suicide and take innocent lives with them either.  ;)

That he so Blithely ignored. OH FOR CHRISTS SAKE! The clinton administration passed on vast amounts of information to the Bush administration about the possibility of Terrorist attacks in the US. Not only that, Bin Laden was considerd one of the biggest threats during the Clinton administration, Clintin ordered attacks on possible al quaeda hide outs and training facilities.
Also, specific information was handed down regarding the use of Planes as weapons.

To ignore these facts is ridiculous, but ridiculous and the Bush administration go hand in hand as that's exactly what they did. Ignore the Intelligence that was given to them.

George has done many good things here at Home, however his Forign Policy is goshawful. I dare say a 5 year old could do better. Let's see.. if we tick off everyone, they're not gonna like us, if we're nice.. maybe they will. Doh! George, why couldn't you think of that  ::)

No Politician will do 10% of what they say they will, they just want your vote. It's not what they say they're going to do that's Important, it's what they actually do.


I guess what I am getting at is although Clinton appeared to know this information, there wasn't a whole lot done to prepare for any attacks. I mean, one attack is pretty scary - that isn't something to take lightly- especially if it happened 2 1/2 years before he left the presidency. Although it was good for him to go after him in Afghanistan and try to do missile attacks against the Al Queda, Americans were very much in the dark at how threatening Bin Laden really was. This, to me, was an oversight by the Clinton administration with the fact that we should have been more heavily warned and better prepared for any more such attacks - especially if we had "vast" amounts of information handed down to Bush. 

Let me get this straight Andrea.. your serious?

You think because US Troops are off getting blown up in Iraq (a country which really wasn't exactly an al qaueda (sp) hotbed before) there won't be attacks on the US again?

Oh PUHLEASE!


Oh, I'm sure there will be.. because once again, America will become lax... let our guard down, close military bases, cut defense spending.. and leave ourselves wide open to those who think the world needs to be rid of "infidels".

I doubt they will occur during this administration... but only time will tell.

This, to me, was an oversight by the Clinton administration with the fact that we should have been more heavily warned


Of course, so we could have had the Police state Bush and his neo-Con cronies want  ::)


Oh, I'm sure there will be.. because once again, America will become lax... let our guard down, close military bases, cut defense spending.. and leave ourselves wide open to those who are seeking an islam world.


We would spend 100% of the budget on defence and still be attacked. I could be building a bomb right now.. I'm not.. I'm technically and mechanically retarded, but i could be. Terrorism is Unstoppable. Anybody can become disenchanted and decide to take things in to there own hands..

Of course, so we could have had the Police state Bush and his neo-Con cronies want  ::)

We would spend 100% of the budget on defence and still be attacked. I could be building a bomb right now.. I'm not.. I'm technically and mechanically retarded, but i could be. Terrorism is Unstoppable. Anybody can become disenchanted and decide to take things in to there own hands..


well.. if the world hates us more than ever before... and we haven't been attacked in almost 4 years.. I'd say we're doing something right.

My answer remains the same.  Definitely not!
I can depend on snow in the winter and getting slammed for what I say in here...but hey, at least we have 9 other people who agree with us :D ;)

well.. if the world hates us more than ever before... and we haven't been attacked in almost 4 years.. I'd say we're doing something right.


Here is a question for you. In the long run, what's more beneficial.. spending billions of dollars on a war that wasn't needed, or Spending Billions of dollars helping those who are impoverished throughout the world spreading goodwill.

I realize this is not in reality exactly the way it works, it's a very simplified version but the key principals are the same.

We have gotten off the Issue however of How poorly (or well as some people suggest) George is performing. I'm sorry for going off on a tangent (i realise that's frowned upon  ;))

Theres something about this part of the board that brings out the worst in people.  ::)

Of course, so we could have had the Police state Bush and his neo-Con cronies want  ::)

We would spend 100% of the budget on defence and still be attacked. Could you restate that, I didn't really get it (I think my brain is getting tired at this time of day)

I could be building a bomb right now.. I'm not.. I'm technically and mechanically retarded, but i could be. Terrorism is Unstoppable. Anybody can become disenchanted and decide to take things in to there own hands..


Let me serve you an interesting thing I have learned in my economies book. It's a comparison of piracy in the 1700's compared to our terrorist attacks on 9/11 and the effects these have on our economy. Pirates were compared to modern day terrorists because they also scared the bejesus out of innocent people and caused loads of loss to the nations who were in port in the West Indies making trades, while losing all or most of their goods. This wasn't good for the early American economy nor was it favorable for people who wanted to trade in those regions of pirate laden islands. It goes to serve that trying to rid of pirates and their terrorizing ways can only make an economy stronger. This isn't my opinion, but just an interesting observation/comparison.

My guess is Lincoln had an under 50% approval rating when he was president during the time of the war between the states.

Let me serve you an interesting thing I have learned in my economies book. It's a comparison of piracy in the 1700's compared to our terrorist attacks on 9/11 and the effects these have on our economy. Pirates were compared to modern day terrorists because they also scared the bejesus out of innocent people and caused loads of loss to the nations who were in port in the West Indies making trades, while losing all or most of their goods. This wasn't good for the early American economy nor was it favorable for people who wanted to trade in those regions of pirate laden islands. It goes to serve that trying to rid of pirates and their terrorizing ways can only make an economy stronger. This isn't my opinion, but just an interesting observation/comparison.


I think the comparison is slightly different but along the same lines.

Yes, if terrorism was eliminated i dare say all aspects of life, the economy being one of them, would improve, unfortunatley, as i have previously said, It can't be fully eliminated.

Death is just a by-product of terrorism. The main point of it is to cause Terror as the name implys. This terror can be in the form of stopping people leaving there homes, or as we've seen here in the US. People fearing each other and being afraid to speak out.

Here is a question for you. In the long run, what's more beneficial.. spending billions of dollars on a war that wasn't needed, or Spending Billions of dollars helping those who are impoverished throughout the world spreading goodwill.




Well, like I've said from day one... we already DO dish out billions of dollars to other places in the world.  Unfortunately, Afghanistan(taliban) and Iraq (saddam) were two of the ones we foolishly dished out money/weapons to.  You see, other countries say they don't want us involved in their affairs.  Yet, they have no problem with us meddling by sending them money.  I think it should be one way or the other... and I would be satisfied EITHER way.  Either we provide financial support to the rest of the world, AND we have some say as to what goes on in the world...  OR we stay out of international affairs, and we keep our money here.

I'm not saying we can't buy foreign products or anything... but the "helping" Israel.. "helping" Afghanistan.. "helping" Iraq... should stop, if we aren't going to have any power over what they do with this money.

Yes.  Despise the man.  Plain and simple. 

How about we send aid to people who need it and not warring human rights violators? Or is that too complicated?

he's nowhere near being the best...but he is not the worst either.





Erin :)

How about we send aid to people who need it and not warring human rights violators? Or is that too complicated?




"need"    What makes one group of people more deserving than another? 

My guess is Lincoln had an under 50% approval rating when he was president during the time of the war between the states.

Yeah, but Dubya ain't noooooo Abe Lincoln!
::)

I voted "Yes". I don't know when exactly the poll started, or how much the people who voted "No" have the watched the news this past week, but if you are aware of the fact that President Bush cut the federal funding for the Gulf Coast flood control program by 44% percent specifically to help fund the Iraq war, and not only that, but he did it in 2004. Not 2003 or 2002 but in one of the worst hurricane seasons on record! And experts have been giving dire warnings on New Orleans for years.

This is a disaster larger-in-scale than 9/11. We have lost an estimated 10,000 fellow citizens at the least, entire communities have been devastated. Gulfport, Mississippi is 90% destroyed. I mean the buildings were completely LEVELED. The Governor of MS said it looked like Hiroshima. The ENTIRE town of Bay St.Louis is gone. Both towns I visited extensively as a child with my family; many fond memories. This has forced hundreds of thousands of people out of their homes.

It took FEMA, several days to react to the worst natural disaster in American history. Today, President Bush had the nerve to tell that puke Mike Brown, the director of FEMA, that even though he wasn't "happy with the results", that "you(FEMA) are doing a good job". If the results aren't satisfactory, the JOB is unsatisfactory. That was nothing but self-serving crap and a pathetic and contrived attempt to save a little face for FEMA that backfired. And more importantly, it demonstrates how direly out of touch the President is with the situation. NINETEEN New Orleans police officers have TAKEN THEIR  OWN LIVES out of frustration with the lack of help. Over 200 have resigned.

President Bush has miserably failed our nation at it's most needy hour. Any illusions that this man is actually protecting us should tumble like a house of cards now. Remember, 4 years after 9/11 only 1 in 10 cargo crates shipped into this country are screened.

I just don't understand how anyone fully aware of the situation could in good concious vote No.

I voted "Yes". I don't know when exactly the poll started, or how much the people who voted "No" have the watched the news this past week, but if you are aware of the fact that President Bush cut the federal funding for the Gulf Coast flood control program by 44% percent specifically to help fund the Iraq war, and not only that, but he did it in 2004. Not 2003 or 2002 but in one of the worst hurricane seasons on record! And experts have been giving dire warnings on New Orleans for years.

This is a disaster larger-in-scale than 9/11. We have lost an estimated 10,000 fellow citizens at the least, entire communities have been devastated. Gulfport, Mississippi is 90% destroyed. I mean the buildings were completely LEVELED. The Governor of MS said it looked like Hiroshima. The ENTIRE town of Bay St.Louis is gone. Both towns I visited extensively as a child with my family; many fond memories. This has forced hundreds of thousands of people out of their homes.

It took FEMA, several days to react to the worst natural disaster in American history. Today, President Bush had the nerve to tell that puke Mike Brown, the director of FEMA, that even though he wasn't "happy with the results", that "you(FEMA) are doing a good job". If the results aren't satisfactory, the JOB is unsatisfactory. That was nothing but self-serving crap and a pathetic and contrived attempt to save a little face for FEMA that backfired. And more importantly, it demonstrates how direly out of touch the President is with the situation. NINETEEN New Orleans police officers have TAKEN THEIR  OWN LIVES out of frustration with the lack of help. Over 200 have resigned.

President Bush has miserably failed our nation at it's most needy hour. Any illusions that this man is actually protecting us should tumble like a house of cards now. Remember, 4 years after 9/11 only 1 in 10 cargo crates shipped into this country are screened.


That's the best put argument i've seen regarding this whole sorry situation Alex. Bravo, I applaud you.


I just don't understand how anyone fully aware of the situation could in good concious vote No.


'Blinded By The Right'

Thank you, Andrew. I feel very strongly about this, as i have strong ties to the delta an gulf coast region.

Also, i'd like to add: Here in Texas we have a saying about how some people all are hat and no cattle. That means they talk the talk, but they don't walk the walk. President Bush is most definitely all hat and no cattle. And you know what, I disown the guy as a Texan. He wasn't even born here anyway, hes a WASP silver spooner from Conneticut.

Thank you, Andrew. I feel very strongly about this, as i have strong ties to the delta an gulf coast region.

Also, i'd like to add: Here in Texas we have a saying about how some people all are hat and no cattle. That means they talk the talk, but they don't walk the walk. President Bush is most definitely all hat and no cattle. And you know what, I disown the guy as a Texan. He wasn't even born here anyway, hes a WASP silver spooner from Conneticut.


Oh but Alex, he wears one of them purrdy hat's, he's a cowboy gosh dagnabbit.. after all, he lives in a ranch house  ::) Poor lil' Georgey, he lives in an illusion. Much like some of the Neo Con's do. It's all an illusion.

The Man failed his way to the Presidency and now he's failing his way out of it. I do however believe this incident will stand the test of time and tell people just what Lil George was like.

'Daddy, Daddy, you had to live in that evil George Bush's Imperialistic reign?'
"Yes son, we had it tough, we didn't know when the Fed's were gonna burst through the door and arrest us for exercising our rights of free speech"
'I heard he cut spending in areas that were almost certain to be hit by Hurricanes, is that true?'
"Yes son, it seems he just enjoyed other people's misery"
'Daddy, will he come back from the Grave like Regan?'
"No son, even his own people got sick and tired of him eventually, now go back to bed, you have to be up at 5 to read from the Quaran"

;D (I'm sorry everybody.. but you can see it happening can't you)

Yeah, but Dubya ain't noooooo Abe Lincoln!
::)


That wasn't his point though.

His point was that a larger majority than 50% were against Abe Lincoln of the United States.  Therefore stating that a democracy of voting does not always clean cut the good, bad and the ugly.

If it did, I'd be bordering The Confederacy rather than Missouri.

Thank you, Andrew. I feel very strongly about this, as i have strong ties to the delta an gulf coast region.

Also, i'd like to add: Here in Texas we have a saying about how some people all are hat and no cattle. That means they talk the talk, but they don't walk the walk. President Bush is most definitely all hat and no cattle. And you know what, I disown the guy as a Texan. He wasn't even born here anyway, hes a WASP silver spooner from Conneticut.
How did he even get elected governor in the first place? SInce you're from Texas, maybe you can help me on this one. My understanding was that he defeated a popular incumbent, Ann Richards, back in 1994. Did he win simply because of his last name? Or did he latch onto some controversial issue (like gay marriage) that got the Christian Right in Texas all fired up?

People please understand, i didnt mean my argument in a partisan way. Quite frankly, screw conservatism and liberalism both at the moment. All of those other issues like gay marriage, gun control, creationism vs. evolution, etc. seem very miniscule and meaningless measured against the hurricane and what it has wrought. This is life and death in a very ultimate example. Screw the question of whether what Bush has done is too conservative or not conservative enough or what! What matters is how he has handled the REALITY of what is going on.

I have the honor of knowing a soon-to-be-ex-marine and Iraq vet, whom told that when his wife gets overly mad and upset over something, he reminds her "bullets are flying, people are dying, your petty like anger means nothing to the reality of whats going on". Thats a good analogy we can apply to our government right now. Our partisan fights mean crap, in the face of what the hurricane has done. We HAVE to put it aside, please. Each and every person who dies or is misplaced from their home and/or family is a human beings. Imagine the effects of your entire life being destroyed or losing a loved one, and then imagine it happening hundreds of thousands of times over(millions counting the people who are ok but their homes were destroyed). Please, for the sake of your fellow humans(forget american vs non-american, forget southern vs nortern, repub vs dem etc.), drop the partisan viewpoint for awhile.

How did he even get elected governor in the first place? SInce you're from Texas, maybe you can help me on this one. My understanding was that he defeated a popular incumbent, Ann Richards, back in 1994. Did he win simply because of his last name? Or did he latch onto some controversial issue (like gay marriage) that got the Christian Right in Texas all fired up?


Didn't follow that election, I was a child at the time and did not pay attention to politics. It'd be an interesting election to research though for some historical context on his rise to political fame.

People please understand, i didnt mean my argument in a partisan way. Quite frankly, screw conservatism and liberalism both at the moment. All of those other issues like gay marriage, gun control, creationism vs. evolution, etc. seem very miniscule and meaningless measured against the hurricane and what it has wrought. This is life and death in a very ultimate example. Screw the question of whether what Bush has done is too conservative or not conservative enough or what! What matters is how he has handled the REALITY of what is going on.

I have the honor of knowing a soon-to-be-ex-marine and Iraq vet, whom told that when his wife gets overly mad and upset over something, he reminds her "bullets are flying, people are dying, your petty like anger means nothing to the reality of whats going on". Thats a good analogy we can apply to our government right now. Our partisan fights mean crap, in the face of what the hurricane has done. We HAVE to put it aside, please. Each and every person who dies or is misplaced from their home and/or family is a human beings. Imagine the effects of your entire life being destroyed or losing a loved one, and then imagine it happening hundreds of thousands of times over(millions counting the people who are ok but their homes were destroyed). Please, for the sake of your fellow humans(forget american vs non-american, forget southern vs nortern, repub vs dem etc.), drop the partisan viewpoint for awhile.


This a strong conviction of what should be taken as a standpoint.  I like what you had to say, and think your right in many ways.

Realize even if the rest of the world agreed with you there would be a "Ok, what action do we take"  which would take the liberals and conservatives a long time to agree to, then the question of "How do we take the action" once we decided the action to take would be a conclusion that enternity might have the time to tackle.

I just don't understand how anyone fully aware of the situation could in good concious vote No.


I'm just not into the whole "Shoulda, coulda, woulda" game.  Did you say at anytime prior to the hurricane that the federal government should invest more money into building up the levees and floodwalls in Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana?

See, we had intelligence (not concrete) that terrorists were planning to fly planes into buildings.  "WE SHOULDA DONE SOMETHING!  THIS COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED!  BUSH SCREWED UP!"
(What if we HAD done something, and 9/11 never happened.. I can see the protesters already..We had no PROOF they were going to fly planes into buildings!)

We had intelligence (not concrete) that Iraq had WMD's.  We did something.  "WE SHOULDN'T HAVE DONE ANYTHING!  WE DIDN'T HAVE PROOF!  BUSH SCREWED UP AGAIN!"
(What if Saddam HAD attacked us?  I can hear it now.. "WE SHOULD HAVE DONE SOMETHING!")

We spend a large amount of money on national defense.  "WE SHOULDN'T HAVE PUT SO MUCH MONEY INTO DEFENSE!  WE SHOULD USE IT TO HELP THE NEEDY PEOPLE IN THE WORLD! BUSH SCREWED UP AGAIN!"
(And if we were successfully attacked again??  Of course... WE SHOULD HAVE SPENT MORE TO PROTECT THIS COUNTRY!  BUSH ISN'T PROTECTING US!")

We didn't spend enough on hurricane defense."BUSH SCREWED UP AGAIN!"
(And if we spent the money and this never happened??  "WHY ARE WE SPENDING ALL THIS MONEY TO UPGRADE TO A CLASS 5 HURRICANE DEFENSE.. WHEN IT WILL PROBABLY NEVER HAPPEN?  OUR DEFICIT IS SO HIGH ALREADY AND WE NEED HEALTHCARE REFORM!")

::)

I'm just not into the whole "Shoulda, coulda, woulda" game.  Did you say at anytime prior to the hurricane that the federal government should invest more money into building up the levees and floodwalls in Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana?



Don't blame Alex, he believes (from what he wrote) that that levee would have survived the category four hurricane if it just had a few million more federal and state tax dollars.  ::)

Did you not read a word I said in my latest post? Why are you turning this into a partisan-based argument? This is life and death and it just seems horrendously unempathetic on your part to drag this argument into that arena. There are more important things right now then the silly insecurity that this is just another liberal-based bashing of the President. He cut flood protection funding in HALF in one of the WORST hurricane seasons on record. You can see no logical fallacy there? If you haven't noticed, there is a barrage of criticizism from BOTH sides of the aisle, Andrea.

GWB, a few million more? HE CUT THE FUNDING IN HALF. In a time period in which it was being demonstrated to the entire country that hurricanes are a very serious threat to our coast that we needed to be better protected against. WHY ARE YOU POLITICIZING THIS??  >:(

I'm just not into the whole "Shoulda, coulda, woulda" game.  Did you say at anytime prior to the hurricane that the federal government should invest more money into building up the levees and floodwalls in Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana?

See, we had intelligence (not concrete) that terrorists were planning to fly planes into buildings.  "WE SHOULDA DONE SOMETHING!  THIS COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED!  BUSH SCREWED UP!"
(What if we HAD done something, and 9/11 never happened.. I can see the protesters already..We had no PROOF they were going to fly planes into buildings!)

We had intelligence (not concrete) that Iraq had WMD's.  We did something.  "WE SHOULDN'T HAVE DONE ANYTHING!  WE DIDN'T HAVE PROOF!  BUSH SCREWED UP AGAIN!"
(What if Saddam HAD attacked us?  I can hear it now.. "WE SHOULD HAVE DONE SOMETHING!")

We spend a large amount of money on national defense.  "WE SHOULDN'T HAVE PUT SO MUCH MONEY INTO DEFENSE!  WE SHOULD USE IT TO HELP THE NEEDY PEOPLE IN THE WORLD! BUSH SCREWED UP AGAIN!"
(And if we were successfully attacked again??  Of course... WE SHOULD HAVE SPENT MORE TO PROTECT THIS COUNTRY!  BUSH ISN'T PROTECTING US!")

We didn't spend enough on hurricane defense."BUSH SCREWED UP AGAIN!"
(And if we spent the money and this never happened??  "WHY ARE WE SPENDING ALL THIS MONEY TO UPGRADE TO A CLASS 5 HURRICANE DEFENSE.. WHEN IT WILL PROBABLY NEVER HAPPEN?  OUR DEFICIT IS SO HIGH ALREADY AND WE NEED HEALTHCARE REFORM!")

::)





*applauds*

I 100% agree with you, Andrea. No matter what the situation may be--no one will EVER be satisfied. No matter what the president does--people will always find flaw in it. Damned if you do---damned if you don't.



Beth

I'm just not into the whole "Shoulda, coulda, woulda" game.  Did you say at anytime prior to the hurricane that the federal government should invest more money into building up the levees and floodwalls in Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana?

See, we had intelligence (not concrete) that terrorists were planning to fly planes into buildings.  "WE SHOULDA DONE SOMETHING!  THIS COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED!  BUSH SCREWED UP!"
(What if we HAD done something, and 9/11 never happened.. I can see the protesters already..We had no PROOF they were going to fly planes into buildings!)

We had intelligence (not concrete) that Iraq had WMD's.  We did something.  "WE SHOULDN'T HAVE DONE ANYTHING!  WE DIDN'T HAVE PROOF!  BUSH SCREWED UP AGAIN!"
(What if Saddam HAD attacked us?  I can hear it now.. "WE SHOULD HAVE DONE SOMETHING!")

We spend a large amount of money on national defense.  "WE SHOULDN'T HAVE PUT SO MUCH MONEY INTO DEFENSE!  WE SHOULD USE IT TO HELP THE NEEDY PEOPLE IN THE WORLD! BUSH SCREWED UP AGAIN!"
(And if we were successfully attacked again??  Of course... WE SHOULD HAVE SPENT MORE TO PROTECT THIS COUNTRY!  BUSH ISN'T PROTECTING US!")

We didn't spend enough on hurricane defense."BUSH SCREWED UP AGAIN!"
(And if we spent the money and this never happened??  "WHY ARE WE SPENDING ALL THIS MONEY TO UPGRADE TO A CLASS 5 HURRICANE DEFENSE.. WHEN IT WILL PROBABLY NEVER HAPPEN?  OUR DEFICIT IS SO HIGH ALREADY AND WE NEED HEALTHCARE REFORM!")

::)




Talk about Valid Excellent points.  Radical, yes, but you have to be when making yourself heard on this board.

Did you not read a word I said in my latest post? Why are you turning this into a partisan-based argument? This is life and death and it just seems horrendously unempathetic on your part to drag this argument into that arena. There are more important things right now then the silly insecurity that this is just another liberal-based bashing of the President. He cut flood protection funding in HALF in one of the WORST hurricane seasons on record. You can see no logical fallacy there? If you haven't noticed, there is a barrage of criticizism from BOTH sides of the aisle, Andrea.

GWB, a few million more? HE CUT THE FUNDING IN HALF. In a time period in which it was being demonstrated to the entire country that hurricanes are a very serious threat to our coast that we needed to be better protected against. WHY ARE YOU POLITICIZING THIS??  >:(


Did you see what my post was in response to???  You were asking how anyone fully aware of the situation could vote no.    Are you asking me to explain why I don't think a certain president is the worst, but to not include anything political in my answer??

Remember???  This is a "worst president" thread...which clearly makes it a political topic. although it got hijacked into another new orleans thread.. but I was simply answering your question. :)

WHY ARE YOU POLITICIZING THIS??  >:(


Oh, the democrats aren't politicizing this?  "Bush this.....Bush that.....hurricaine.....FEMA.....cut this or that.....vacation......slow response......Bush....."

Sheesh.

Talk about Valid Excellent points. Radical, yes, but you have to be when making yourself heard on this board.


It may sound profound on the surface, but the entire thing was intellectual fluff. It gave the illusion of having a point, when there was no real point at all. The hindsight 20/20 argument is illogical hogwash that can be applied much to vaguely to too broad a range of issues to actually be relevant to the argument about the situation at hand.

Oh, the democrats aren't politicizing this?  "Bush this.....Bush that.....hurricaine.....FEMA.....cut this or that.....vacation......slow response......Bush....."

Sheesh.


THANK YOU!

Oh, the democrats aren't politicizing this? "Bush this.....Bush that.....hurricaine.....FEMA.....cut this or that.....vacation......slow response......Bush....."

Sheesh.


They are criticizing the man who is supposed to be the leader of this entire country. He dropped the ball in a major disaster. There is no way to logically defend that budget cut(considering the circumstances at the time) he made to the federal flood relief program. Criticizism is cutting across political lines in this country. There have been about 15 freakin articles criticizing him in the DALLAS MORNING NEWS. Newsflash: On the political radar, it isnt exactly the New York Times.

This is a hard question to answer.

Bush is by far on the bottom half of the list of the worst presidents ever.  But by no means is he our WORST president.  Granted, Ive only lived through 4 including him, so I cant really talk about how life was under FDR or Andrew Johnson so to compare.  I can only go by how we view these people in hindsight, and intelligent thought and analysis about their policies and administrations.  FDR was hated by just as many as he was loved.  Johnson was hated by anyone not from the south.  Grant was hated for being incompetant and out of touch and elitist.  Andrew Jackson was hated for not being elitist enough (among other things that just seem stupid now).  Lincoln was hated by southerners.  Harding was hated for corruption.  Hoover was hated for the Depression.  Nixon for corruption and Cambodia.  LBJ for Vietnam and corruption, Carter, Ford for incompetance, Reagan for being too conservative, Clinton for sexual encounters, John Adams for the Alien and Sedition acts, etc etc etc.  

Not to mention how certain events discussed now later on have tarnished many presidents reputations: Jefferson, Washington, Madison, Lincoln, Monroe, all the greats.  

To determine this I have to go by how history has viewed the former presidents, and the fact that there will never be, or ever was, a president that was loved by everyone, or hated by everyone, so that everyone agrees that he belongs as the worst ever.  

Bush is a bad president.  Not the worst ever, at least according to myself after a tabulation of the facts.  Grant was pretty bad lol.  But in 20 or 30 years, will we view Bush the same way?  Who knows.  

The question asks if he is ONE OF the worst ever, not THE WORST ever.  So the answer is yes.  And this is coming from a Republican....Not a Neo-Con.    

They are criticizing the man who is supposed to be the leader of this entire country. 


I hate to break it to you, Alex.. but that is called... POLITICIZING.

I hate to break it to you, Alex.. but that is called... POLITICIZING.


Criticism and politicking don't go hand in hand, Andrea. The difference between the two is that criticism is based on pragmatic reasoning(i.e. based soley on real factors existing in the situation), whilst political critique is based from pre-constructed ideological standpoints. If you are going to try to condenscend to someone, make sure you know the exact definition of the words you are using.

Criticism and politicking don't go hand in hand, Andrea. The difference between the two is that criticism is based on pragmatic reasoning(i.e. based soley on real factors existing in the situation), whilst political critique is based from pre-constructed ideological standpoints. If you are going to try to condenscend to someone, make sure you know the exact definition of the words you are using.



My advice to you is to start drinking heavily....



Beth

Oh, also, please don't play semantics games with me. That was what you were doing by trying to argue because I was making my points in a Worst President thread, that that automatically meant they were political in nature, despite the fact I explicitly stated they weren't.

My advice to you is to start drinking heavily....



Beth

If you meant that jokingly, I don't get it.  ???

If you meant that jokingly, I don't get it.  ???




That's okay. I wouldn't expect you to get a joke, Alex  ;)



Beth

Oh, also, please don't play semantics games with me. That was what you were doing by trying to argue because I was making my points in a Worst President thread, that that automatically meant they were political in nature, despite the fact I explicitly stated they weren't.

If you meant that jokingly, I don't get it.  ???


semantics games??  LOL ;D

HOW on earth DID you expect me to explain WHY i voted no... without my answer involving politics??  I wasn't answering your post as a whole.. that's why I quoted the part I was responding to.  Which was...
"I just don't understand how anyone fully aware of the situation could in good concious vote No."

That's okay. I wouldn't expect you to get a joke, Alex ;)



Beth


If you want to personally criticize me, don't be all cutesy with the smilies. A barb even if thrown softly still cuts, you know?

I know the quote is from my profile, but how what made it a joke in context of what you quoted from me? I didn't see the correlation.

If you want to personally criticize me, don't be all cutesy with the smilies. A barb even if thrown softly still cuts, you know?

I know the quote is from my profile, but how what made it a joke in context of what you quoted from me? I didn't see the correlation.




Who's criticizing? Alex, if I were criticizing you---I'd let you know it.  ;)



Beth

semantics games??  LOL ;D

HOW on earth DID you expect me to explain WHY i voted no... without my answer involving politics??  I wasn't answering your post as a whole.. that's why I quoted the part I was responding to.  Which was...
"I just don't understand how anyone fully aware of the situation could in good concious vote No."



Because believe it or not you can come up with real thoughts about the world without doing it from a political perspective. Novel concept for you, I suppose.

Because believe it or not you can come up with real thoughts about the world without doing it from a political perspective. Novel concept for you, I suppose.


Alex... WTF??  You didn't ask me for my real thoughts on the world.. you asked me why I voted that Bush isn't the worst president!!! >:(

Who's playing games here?!?!

My little China Girl, you shouldn't mess with me I'll ruin everything you are

My little China Girl, you shouldn't mess with me I'll ruin everything you are



Well, maybe someone took my advice finally! Keep truckin, Chrissy. Have a rum and coke for me. :P

Well, maybe someone took my advice finally! Keep truckin, Chrissy. Have a rum and coke for me. :P


It was getting a little too crazy.  I had to do something. :P ::)

The question asks if he is ONE OF the worst ever, not THE WORST ever.  So the answer is yes.  And this is coming from a Republican....Not a Neo-Con.    


Ah, someone with my point of view ;)

Thank you, Andrew. I feel very strongly about this, as i have strong ties to the delta an gulf coast region.

Also, i'd like to add: Here in Texas we have a saying about how some people all are hat and no cattle. That means they talk the talk, but they don't walk the walk. President Bush is most definitely all hat and no cattle. And you know what, I disown the guy as a Texan. He wasn't even born here anyway, hes a WASP silver spooner from Conneticut.


Amen! 

It may sound profound on the surface, but the entire thing was intellectual fluff. It gave the illusion of having a point, when there was no real point at all. The hindsight 20/20 argument is illogical hogwash that can be applied much to vaguely to too broad a range of issues to actually be relevant to the argument about the situation at hand.


All due respect Alex, I disagree. Her point was no matter what Bush does the liberals are going to find it wrong. That is of course unless Bush became there politcal slave, but let's be realistic, that ain't going to happen.  Now, I dare not say one way or the other  that conservatives would be doing the same to Kerry if he was in office.  Most likely they would.  You can not deny that the liberals aren't doing it, cause they are. That was her point, and she clarified it well.

I'm just not into the whole "Shoulda, coulda, woulda" game.  Did you say at anytime prior to the hurricane that the federal government should invest more money into building up the levees and floodwalls in Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana?

See, we had intelligence (not concrete) that terrorists were planning to fly planes into buildings.  "WE SHOULDA DONE SOMETHING!  THIS COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED!  BUSH SCREWED UP!"
(What if we HAD done something, and 9/11 never happened.. I can see the protesters already..We had no PROOF they were going to fly planes into buildings!)

We had intelligence (not concrete) that Iraq had WMD's.  We did something.  "WE SHOULDN'T HAVE DONE ANYTHING!  WE DIDN'T HAVE PROOF!  BUSH SCREWED UP AGAIN!"
(What if Saddam HAD attacked us?  I can hear it now.. "WE SHOULD HAVE DONE SOMETHING!")

We spend a large amount of money on national defense.  "WE SHOULDN'T HAVE PUT SO MUCH MONEY INTO DEFENSE!  WE SHOULD USE IT TO HELP THE NEEDY PEOPLE IN THE WORLD! BUSH SCREWED UP AGAIN!"
(And if we were successfully attacked again??  Of course... WE SHOULD HAVE SPENT MORE TO PROTECT THIS COUNTRY!  BUSH ISN'T PROTECTING US!")

We didn't spend enough on hurricane defense."BUSH SCREWED UP AGAIN!"
(And if we spent the money and this never happened??  "WHY ARE WE SPENDING ALL THIS MONEY TO UPGRADE TO A CLASS 5 HURRICANE DEFENSE.. WHEN IT WILL PROBABLY NEVER HAPPEN?  OUR DEFICIT IS SO HIGH ALREADY AND WE NEED HEALTHCARE REFORM!")

::)




It's like that all over the world. someone is always going to find fault no matter what.
No one-not even Bush could predict the future and know that this hurricane was going to happen.
good points andrea :)

but all the weather forecasters predicted it

but all the weather forecasters predicted it


The weather forecasters predicted that hurricanes were going to hit the US this year......they didn't know what category these hurricanes would be and where they would hit.

but all the weather forecasters predicted it


"Since when could weathermen predict the weather" Michael J Fox as Marty Mc'Fly "Back to the Future" 1985.


I love using movie quotes, in all sense of reality weather men and women do a great job of forcasting the weather to the best of there abilities with what technology provides. 

Still.......exact time and date was a factor in this exact situation...which wasn't provided.

It's like that all over the world. someone is always going to find fault no matter what.
No one-not even Bush could predict the future and know that this hurricane was going to happen.
good points andrea :)



I agree!  There isn't anything the man could or couldn't do that wouldn't upset someone or another. Nobody is perfect...and no matter who we had in office, there would still be things that they would do that a lot would deem as "stupid". I know that I certainly don't envy Bush or any other leader that may or may not have to be in these kinds of positions and situations.....it's been a rough several years, and he is only human. I'm not saying that perhaps someone would have made better decisions, etc....but we will never know. I am not in love with the guy...but I don't hate his guts either.


Erin :)

This is a hard question to answer.

Bush is by far on the bottom half of the list of the worst presidents ever.  But by no means is he our WORST president.  Granted, Ive only lived through 4 including him, so I cant really talk about how life was under FDR or Andrew Johnson so to compare.  I can only go by how we view these people in hindsight, and intelligent thought and analysis about their policies and administrations.  FDR was hated by just as many as he was loved.  Johnson was hated by anyone not from the south.  Grant was hated for being incompetant and out of touch and elitist.  Andrew Jackson was hated for not being elitist enough (among other things that just seem stupid now).  Lincoln was hated by southerners.  Harding was hated for corruption.  Hoover was hated for the Depression.  Nixon for corruption and Cambodia.  LBJ for Vietnam and corruption, Carter, Ford for incompetance, Reagan for being too conservative, Clinton for sexual encounters, John Adams for the Alien and Sedition acts, etc etc etc. 

Not to mention how certain events discussed now later on have tarnished many presidents reputations: Jefferson, Washington, Madison, Lincoln, Monroe, all the greats. 

To determine this I have to go by how history has viewed the former presidents, and the fact that there will never be, or ever was, a president that was loved by everyone, or hated by everyone, so that everyone agrees that he belongs as the worst ever. 

Bush is a bad president.  Not the worst ever, at least according to myself after a tabulation of the facts.  Grant was pretty bad lol.  But in 20 or 30 years, will we view Bush the same way?  Who knows. 

The question asks if he is ONE OF the worst ever, not THE WORST ever.  So the answer is yes.  And this is coming from a Republican....Not a Neo-Con.   



Very well put.




Cat

Oh, the democrats aren't politicizing this?  "Bush this.....Bush that.....hurricaine.....FEMA.....cut this or that.....vacation......slow response......Bush....."

Sheesh.


Oh please tell me you didn't just say that. This from a man who's party Politicized every single event during the Clinton Administration.

The question asks if he is ONE OF the worst ever, not THE WORST ever.  So the answer is yes.  And this is coming from a Republican....Not a Neo-Con.   


The Republican party only exists in name now Billy. You for one must know that.

Actual Conservative values aren't upheld, Faux Christian Values are the meal of the day.

Certainly there will be no surprise that I voted yes, YES, YES!!!  The following editorial from the Rutland Herald says it very well.

  http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050907/NEWS/509070306/1018/OPINION

Above several people stated that "he couldn't have known" etc.  Fact is that the Army Corps of Engineers, charged with flood control on the Big Muddy, had their budget cut drastically over the past few years, and had to abandon both planning and execution of levee maintanance and improvements.  FEMA didn't begin to respond until days after the storm hit, yet after crossing Florida it was very clear, days before impact, where the strorm was going and that it was a biggy.  But even if all this is discounted, as the editorial says, there is MUCH MUCH more.  It could take a generation to undo all the disasters Lil' Georgie has caused.

Fact is that the Army Corps of Engineers, charged with flood control on the Big Muddy, had their budget cut drastically over the past few years, and had to abandon both planning and execution of levee maintanance and improvements. 


The Army Corps of Engineers seems to be saying something different.

http://www.usace.army.mil/PA-09-01.pdf

I normally don't post in this section but I for some reason had to jump at this one.  I have to say the anwser to that is no.  As a matter of fact if you look at the history of US presidents there is actually more evidence to the fact that he could potentially go down as one of the greats in the future.  If you look through history at all of the presidents that are considered the greats like, Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, and so on they all have one thing in common.  They were all extremely controversial, I mean look at Lincoln a chunck of this country seceded under his rule, can't get more controversial than that.  So the most controversial presidents tend to go down as the greatest presidents.  No one here can say Bush isn't controversial. Roosevelt is probably the best one to relate Bush too.  Roosevelt was one of the most hated presidents of all time but now he is considered to be one of the greatest and now even has a memorial for him in DC.  Both had a struggling enomony when they came in to office to deal with, though Roosevelt did have a bigger economic problems to deal with but still we were in a Recession when Bush came in, and Bush took a page right out of Roosevelts book when dealing with the recession.

George W. Bush is a joke....yes,he did steal the Presidency, not like Nixon stole it...the difference is Tricky Dick got caught with his proverbial hands in the cookie jar....and George W. got away with the thievery!

To all of those who replied and were brave enough to give your opinion and stand your ground, regardless of whether the answer to the topic question was "yes" or "no,” I applaud you.  It takes a great deal of energy to make it in this forum, especially with explosive subjects ridden with controversy.  Whether I agree or disagree, I respect your opinions and your right to have them.

I've been working very hard at trying to be objective with respect to Bush and his administration and as to whether or not they have been efficient in their roles as leaders of our great country.  The fact of the matter is that Bush and his administration have demonstrated a monstrous degree of incompetence in many areas.  Whatever positive accomplishments  he may have done, more numerous are his failures which continually hurt us as Americans, hurt our country, our nation.

His lack of action and response during one of the worst disasters of our time and in our own country was the last straw for me, as an American, as a person who clearly sees negligence when it occurs, as a human being trying to understand and cope with our realities that plague our nation and its reputation throughout the world.  

I find today very tragic.  When republicans themselves become appalled by their own elected leader, something is terribly wrong.  Most importantly, it proves that such disturbances go beyond party lines and affect everyone.  The plainly visible consequences are a testimony of Bush's legacy.  The effects are undeniable.  Now it's too obvious.  The people of our country and the people of the world are seeing for themselves a great sense of helplessness at the core of our nation.  Bush has caused this country to weaken morally and his stubbornness reigns at the cost of many lives everyday.  

His too little too late reasoning and excuses and his present attempt at motivating the country into an impossible state of optimism are transparent and shameful.  He’s not credible.  In my honest opinion, he’s the president that should have never been.  Pardon me for ranting, but I felt I needed to say all of this if  only to selfishly help myself feel just a little better, if there’s any way that could be accomplished, as I’ve suffered along with the Gulf Coast and its beautiful people.

To any and all of those affected by Katrina directly or indirectly, I’m sorry to all of you, to all of those who can’t see or hear me.  You deserved better than this.  We all deserve better than this.  My thoughts are with you.

In my opinion, Bush is one of the worst presidents in U.S. History.

Bush being controversial doesn't make him great. Tons of people hated Hoover and history hasn't treated him well. Lincoln was controversial because the general public was racist. FDR was controversial partially because of public conservatism and willingness to confront recent and maybe all history's best example of an axis of evil. Bush is controversial because of his own irrationality, not the irrationality of the public. Sending our troops into an unwinnable war using deceitful tactics  (gulf of Tonkin) to get public approval ruined LBJ's reputation, and his domestic record was much better than Bush's.

I was talking to my grandfather on the phone about the hurricane, he is 85 years old, and he said that in his entire life, this is the single worst thing he remembers happening in this country. I can't help but feel that those who are trying to defend the government's response just don't fully understand the impact of what has happened. I have family on the coast, and my aunt whom I live with has family in New Orleans itself. The feeling of desperation is tremendous, and the feeling of betrayal is sickening.

I saw on "Meet The Press" a man from the local New Orleans rescue services, and he said that one of the men on the rescue team's elderly mother called him Tuesday night from the nursing home she lived in, crying and begging for rescue. He told her someone would come. But they couldn't get to her. She called Wednesday, crying and pleading. Thursday too. Friday night they finally were able to get to the nursing home, and he found his mother dead; drowned in her own bed. The man telling what happened completely broke down crying. He said they were sick of press conferences. Sick of promises. That it had been 5 days and there had been no help from the government.

If you can honestly defend that, I doubt you have any ability to empathize with the situation.

I was talking to my grandfather on the phone about the hurricane, he is 85 years old, and he said that in his entire life, this is the single worst thing he remembers happening in this country. I can't help but feel that those who are trying to defend the government's response just don't fully understand the impact of what has happened. I have family on the coast, and my aunt whom I live with has family in New Orleans itself. The feeling of desperation is tremendous, and the feeling of betrayal is sickening.

I saw on "Meet The Press" a man from the local New Orleans rescue services, and he said that one of the men on the rescue team's elderly mother called him Tuesday night from the nursing home she lived in, crying and begging for rescue. He told her someone would come. But they couldn't get to her. She called Wednesday, crying and pleading. Thursday too. Friday night they finally were able to get to the nursing home, and he found his mother dead; drowned in her own bed. The man telling what happened completely broke down crying. He said they were sick of press conferences. Sick of promises. That it had been 5 days and there had been no help from the government.

If you can honestly defend that, I doubt you have any ability to empathize with the situation.



it's impossible to rescue everyone....I hate to be that cut and dry....they are all sad situations, and my heart goes out to each and every family....BUT, regardless if they had 2 people rescuing or 10, 000 people rescuing....people will still die.  It is impossible to reach in every single nook and cranny and make sure that everyone is ok....to think that anything of th