If he catches Bin Laden and kills Saddam and gives up peace by ridding the world of evil he could go down as one of the all time greats.

But if it goes awry i.e. Vietnam, he will be another Van Damn Buren.

What do you pinheads think?

BTW, if he can reunite Justin with N Sync he will be number 1 in Hockeyfighter's world!

If he catches Bin Laden and kills Saddam and gives up peace by ridding the world of evil he could go down as one of the all time greats.

But if it goes awry i.e. Vietnam, he will be another Van Damn Buren.

What do you pinheads think?

BTW, if he can reunite Justin with N Sync he will be number 1 in Hockeyfighter's world!

ok, this thread is 3 yrs old. He didnt catch osama but did kill saddam.

Dead presidents that represent me:

Ghandi
Nelson Mandela
Karl Pilkington.

We've had a number of threads on this, and even a couple on worst president ever. Historians actually rank some other presidents' misdeeds as worse than the current presidents.

**** like this isn't helping his legacy, though:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16624979/

Bush says opposition won’t shift his Iraq policy
Cheney blasts Congress’ challenge as a bid to ‘run a war by committee’

NBC NEWS EXCLUSIVE
Updated: 9:16 p.m. ET Jan 14, 2007
WASHINGTON - Digging in for confrontation, President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney say they will not budge from sending more U.S. troops to Iraq no matter how much Congress opposes it.

“I fully understand they could try to stop me,” Bush said of the Democrat-run Congress. “But I’ve made my decision, and we’re going forward.”

As the president talked tough in an interview that aired Sunday night, lawmakers pledged to explore ways to stop him.

“We need to look at what options we have available to constrain the president,” said Democratic Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, a possible White House candidate in 2008. Democrats remain wary, though, of appearing unsupportive of American troops.

A defiant Cheney, meanwhile, said Democrats offered criticism without credible alternatives. He pointedly reminded lawmakers that Bush is commander in chief.

“You cannot run a war by committee,” the vice president said of congressional input.

The aggressive White House reaction came as the House and Senate prepare to vote on resolutions opposing additional U.S. troops in Iraq.

As the White House watched even some GOP support peel away for the war plan, it went all-out to regain some footing.

Interview from Camp David
Bush gave his first interview from Camp David, airing Sunday night on CBS’ “60 Minutes.” It was his second prime-time opportunity in five days to explain why he thinks adding U.S. troops can help stabilize Iraq and hasten the time when American soldiers can come home. He addressed the nation from the White House last Wednesday evening.

“Some of my buddies in Texas say, ’You know, let them fight it out. What business is it of ours?”’ Bush said of Iraqis. “And that’s a temptation that I know a lot of people feel. But if we do not succeed in Iraq, we will leave behind a Middle East which will endanger America.”

Yet when asked if he owes the Iraqi people an apology for botching the management of the war, he said “Not at all.”

“We liberated that country from a tyrant,” Bush said. “I think the Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude.”

Bush announced last week he will send 21,500 more troops to Iraq to halt violence, mainly around Baghdad, as an essential step toward stabilizing the country’s government.

Democrats in Congress — along with some Republicans — were unimpressed and frustrated. Beyond promising to go on record in opposition to the president’s approach, the Democratic leadership is considering whether, and how, to cut off funding for additional troops.

“You don’t like to micromanage the Defense Department, but we have to, in this case, because they’re not paying attention to the public,” said Rep. John Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat who helps oversee military funding.

It is unclear how any effort by Congress could affect Bush’s plan. National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley said the White House already has money appropriated by Congress to move the additional forces to Iraq.

Power of purse strings?
GOP Sen. John McCain of Arizona, a potential 2008 presidential contender who endorses Bush’s call for more troops, said votes to express disapproval were pointless.

“If they’re dead serious then we should have a motion to cut off funding,” he said of those fighting Bush’s strategy.

Many Democrats favor a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops, along with new diplomatic efforts with Iraq’s neighbors.

The Bush administration had hoped that the president’s overhauled strategy would lead to some bipartisan unity or that the White House would at least get an extended hearing before legislative leaders made up their minds. Instead, it encountered majority opposition in Congress and a public that rejected by large polling margins the military and political ideas Bush announced.

“I’m not going to try to be popular and change principles to do so,” Bush said when asked about his standing with the public.

In the interview, Bush rejected an assertion that, time and again, his administration hasn’t been straight with the American people about Iraq. He said his spirits were strong.

“I really am not the kind of guy that sits here and says, ’Oh gosh, I’m worried about my legacy,”’ Bush said.

The president also said he saw part of the Internet-aired video of the execution of Saddam Hussein, which showed some Iraqis taunting Saddam as he stood with a noose around his neck on the gallows. He said it could have been handled a lot better.

Bush said he got no particular satisfaction from seeing Saddam hang. “I’m not a revengeful person,” he said.

Hadley was interviewed on “This Week” on ABC and “Meet the Press” on NBC. Cheney was on “Fox News Sunday.” Obama was on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” Murtha appeared on ABC’s “This week.”

© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed

http://www.strike-the-root.com/52/herman/herman22.html

Worst President Ever? You Might Be Surprised

by Douglas Herman



Exclusive to STR



He shut down newspapers, imprisoned editors, and forced reporters to toe the official US government line long before the PATRIOT Act. Then he attacked US cities and burned them to the ground. Who was he?

He lied to US voters, sided with one European imperial state against another, and plunged neutralist America into a disastrous war that cost 320,000 American casualties. Who was he?

He promised voters the dawning of a new age in America . Instead he secretly dealt with a pair of dictators, providing weapons to both sides (while lying to Americans) and encouraged a murderous war between the two nations that cost nearly a million casualties. He also funded and encouraged repressive Central American regimes that killed thousands, murdering American citizens along the way. He spent trillions of taxpayer dollars on new weapons for enemies that no longer existed. Who was he?

If you answered Lincoln, Wilson and Reagan—among the most “respected” presidents in high school history books-- you know your American history well.

Lincoln, the “Great Emancipator.” Wilson, the “Peacemaker,” the vocal proponent of the League of Nations . Reagan, “The Great Communicator,” the mythical fighter of World Communism. At least that is how US history books portray them, among the Best Presidents Of All Time.

But how would they fare on any list of Worst Presidents Ever? Would embattled George Bush or disgraced Bill Clinton fare worse (or better) than Lincoln, Reagan or Wilson, and why?

Wouldn’t it be safe to say that once in power, ALL American presidents embrace a cruel conceit, to some degree, that whatever dictatorial power they wield is right? George Bush is thus no worse than Woodrow Wilson, certainly no worse than Nixon, Reagan, Clinton or LBJ.

What Defines A Bad President?

“The criteria to use is to what degree has a president diminished sovereignty of the individual states, how aggressive was his administration in an interventionist international foreign policy and what assault of destruction did his minions do on honest money and national debt,” wrote Sartre.

“However . . . each successive administration build upon the tyranny of the past . . . Abe Lincoln was the worst. He killed the last hope of a genuine Republic.” Among Sartre’s list of others: Hamilton, Wilson, FDR, LBJ, and Clinton.

What appears to make GWB worse, at present, is his surrounding cast of scoundrels. By appearances, no one among his retinue seems to have the scruples of a gnat. But were those courtiers of Bill Clinton (Madeline Albright) much better? Indeed, one respected leftist writer claims Clinton was far worse than George W. Bush.

The Worst Of The Worst

A list of The Worst Presidents Ever would be impossible to compile precisely. How would you arrange it and by what criteria? Short term or long term harm to the Republic? The number of US citizens killed and the trillions of taxpayer dollars funneled from the poor to the rich? The repudiation of humane principles (war crimes) and moral values? The betrayal of public trust and the blatant disregard for future generations? The crass enrichment of cronies? Or all of the above?

George Smith wrote: “At my present level of understanding, I give Lincoln the edge over Wilson as the worst president in American history. Wilson is a close second because of the damage done in 1913 (Federal Reserve Act) . . . We shouldn't forget the behind-the-scenes work of people pushing for government privileges, such as J.P. Morgan, who used their immense financial power to restructure government in their favor.”

Smith added, “Focusing on the president, therefore, can be misleading. We know Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act into law, for example, but the Fed was the brainchild of others.”

What would be foremost on any list of presidential failings and felonies, high crimes and misdemeanors?

“I'd say the most important issues are expanding the state, advancing the ideology of statism, and body count,” wrote historian Anthony Gregory. “Concerning this last one, my list of the top few worst presidents ever is an exclusive club of those who killed hundreds of thousands of people. Not so coincidentally, but helpful for our purposes of evaluation, those who killed a lot of people also tended to be the ones who eroded liberty, expanded the state, and encouraged statism the most.”

Gregory listed such luminaries--beginning with the worst—as Woodrow Wilson, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman (a tough call!), Lyndon Johnson, William McKinley, George W. Bush, Teddy Roosevelt, James Polk, James Madison, Herbert Hoover.

Lincoln made every list of everyone I asked. And yet, unlike our present leader, Lincoln expressed more than a little remorse for his war, more than a little sorrow, attempted more than a little reconciliation, extended more than a little graciousness to the vanquished “enemy” than the current president. No lengthy torture sessions or inquisitions or imprisonments of thousands of Southerners years after their capitulation. While the worst US president in history may be the one that afflicts the republic at any given time, the best one appears to be one who governs least—or least effectively, in a historical sense.

A president who starts no wars, sends no troops, drops no bombs, raises no taxes, expands no government, spends no fortunes, steals no elections, curtails less liberties while allowing freedom a free reign, would qualify as among the best. Have we ever had ONE of those?

Footnote: How dangerous was it to threaten the Federal Reserve bankers? To get elected, Wilson secretly sided with a cabal of international bankers to form the Federal Reserve in 1913. When JFK announced he would rescind the privileges of the Federal Reserve in 1963, and return the monetary system to the US Treasury, JFK was shot out of office a few months later. Some historians believe there was a connection.



November 16, 2005

THis thread is stoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooopid

I like being called a pin head by someone who speculated over George Bush being the greatest president of all time.

he will be neither. he will be a forgotten president. all bush is doing is trying to support the mistakes that were left to him by ronald reagan, (the worst president ever). as the democrats try to repair these errors the republicans try to keep them alive. it only deepens the hole that we find ourselves in as a nation.

if you guys think bush is the best or the worst you clearly know zero about american politics ... the worst ?

truman ...he made choices during/after ww2 that still affect us today!

If he catches Bin Laden and kills Saddam and gives up peace by ridding the world of evil he could go down as one of the all time greats.

But if it goes awry i.e. Vietnam, he will be another Van Damn Buren.

What do you pinheads think?

BTW, if he can reunite Justin with N Sync he will be number 1 in Hockeyfighter's world!

No matter what he does on his way out he is still one of the dumbest and worst presidents ever.

We know the answer to this now. At Trimble said though, doesnt meen hes the worst. Just ****e

yuuuup exactly ... hes bad for now but later we'll remember good that he did

which he has done good...all presidents have

What are the goods things hes done? Im not saying he hasnt

you'd have to look that up ...im unaware i just know all presidents have good things they do

if you guys think bush is the best or the worst you clearly know zero about american politics ... the worst ?

truman ...he made choices during/after ww2 that still affect us today!

http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/7711/938890459llh5.jpg

LMFAO, that's a priceless image.

priceless as in how? ...the fact that you cant stop looking at it?

cant say i blame you brother i get a rock hard **** looking at myself all the time

i mean this has got to be a first

we're clearly talking politics and this little trick ***get comes waltzing in salivateing over my "priceless" ...i didnt say it

but my "priceless" picture ...

god he must think im king swagger **** if he goes through all this ...

Bush's actions maybe more appreciated in years to come, like Lincolns were, or they may just stay racey and people will continue to hate him like Lyndon Johnson...

I wouldn't go as far as to say he's the best but I wouldn't put him very low either...

Bush's actions maybe more appreciated in years to come, like Lincolns were, or they may just stay racey and people will continue to hate him like Lyndon Johnson...

I wouldn't go as far as to say he's the best but I wouldn't put him very low either...
Bush will be known as the president who did more to take away citizen rights, created a bigger government than any other