Could Bush be the greartest president in recent history?

So you're saying that if stops fugging everything up he could become a great President. He's been fugging up on a consistent basis the last four years. Why should he stop now. As far as his his diplomacy skills helping him along, he is the anti-diplomat. Faced with a situation that the world could be dominated by Soviet communism, Kennedy went to Europe and was greeted by large cheering crowds. He gave enthusiatic speeches concluded by "Ich bein ein Berliner." President Reagan saw an opportunity to end the communist threat that hung over Eastern Europe and gave his "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" speech to wildly enthusiastic crowds. President Bush Sr saw that a megalomaniac was striving to take over the middle east and built a coalition of over 750,000 troops to boot the Iraqis back to their own territory and forced concessions from them to ensure they could not become a threat again. He was criticized for not taking out Saddam at the time. Dubyah saw America attacked on 9/11 and stated he would chase down the terrorists wherever they may be. He began with a war on the Taliban that he was hesistant to put American troops in harm's way. He depended on Afghani troops to get the job done, and the job was not finished. He then pulled half our troops out Afghanistan to go after a perceived threat that really wasn't there. He then blamed the failure on the intelligence community but gave the Presidential Medal of Freedom to the man who led that intelligence community. He went to Iraq with only three other nations giving him a total of just 24,000 combat troops despite warnings from the Army Chief of Staff that the numbers wouild not be enough to maintain control in the country. Dubyah then named the general's replacement a year early, essentially making him a lame duck. The rest of the world was put off by the USs arrogant demands to take part in his war and did not participate. No Arabic country sent any troops to Iraq. The US entered Iraq and was able to quickly able to make military objectives, but had insufficient force to maintain control. Chaos ensued which fueled an insurgent campaign that plagues us to this day. Hospitals, museums, and other basic institutions were looted. The country was and remains in chaos. There are plans to go forward with elections next month despite a lack of control in the country. Dubyah is betting that massive attacks are not made upon polling places. He is putting his chips all in. Trouble is, he has already squandered most of his chips already.

On the domestic front the Bush administration calls outsourcing of jobs globalization of the economy and states that it is positive for American trade. Manufacturing jobs are replaced with lower paying jobs. Tell me again why Bush is a great President?

I don't think that Bush was elected on the strengths of diplomacy.  I may be wrong, but I'd bet that there are a good number of people out there who would be happy if the situation in the Middle East would get worse.

--I am not citing anyone, that is just speculation based on attitudes I observe.

(Did you hear about the recent poll -I heard it on CBS Radio last night- that said that 44% of Americans are in support of denying certain civil rights to Muslim-Americans.  Scary...)

Anyway, let's give the devil his due.  I'd vote for President Bush as the greatest current American president for the month of November, 2004. 

One word....No.

Whoman69.. I think you can ask anyone here I am as antibush as they come. I am just saying... he has an unprecidented oppertunity..so let us pray he doesn't mess it up.

Dr. Guy is absolutely right.

I can't remember the name of the study right now, but a group of statisticians once compiled a list of all the variables that they used to measure the "greatness" of an American president. On this list, FDR and Lincoln both ranked very near the top, Reagan was ranked as good to great, and Clinton came in just average.

What Bush has now is an oppurtunity to become at least as great a President as Teddy Roosevelt (who also ranked very high). The world right now is in a state of tremondous flux, and the world does need strong leadership to get through it, and at the present moment in time, America is the only entity that can provide the strong leadership needed.

Now Bush does have the character traits necessary to become a strong leader. In the past though, he has mainly channeled his strengths toward only one group of Americans. Let us hope that in his second term he channels those strengths toward all Americans and the world as well.

Anyway, let's give the devil his due. I'd vote for President Bush as the greatest current American president for the month of November, 2004.

I would agree with you, and go even further. Out of presidents with the last name Bush (so far- Jeb '08/'12?), he is definately in the top 2.

dare say that many anti-bush people of today would be are are anti-Roosevelt people of 1941. But such is the price that great leaders must bear. history will decide their greatness, not polls or any tests that we put to them. And History will not be influenced by any of the nastiness that goes on today. That is why we dont judge current or recent presidents as great. There are still too many people with chips on their shoulders.

Roosevelt won WW2. If Iraq becomes another Vietnam, he could be remebered as one of the worst Presidents in history. And so far it looks like he is going about the whole war on terror wrong.

Roosevelt won WW2. If Iraq becomes another Vietnam, he could be remebered as one of the worst Presidents in history. And so far it looks like he is going about the whole war on terror wrong.

Which just proves my point. Check out the press reports of 1946 where they decried the fact we were losing the peace and the people. Yet today, does anyone even given short shrift to that yellow journalism?

many site the yellow journalism of today to justify their hatred of the current president and his failures. in 60 years, what will be said?

We will not judge Bush as great or bad. Our children's children will.

Tell me again why Bush is a great President?

Looks to me like Sandy never says that, simply states that the opportunity is there, and also states for certain things "I think he will fail miserably".

I look at the situation and see the same thing. With Arafat gone and the situation in Iraq possibilities are there. Also changes are needed in regards to social security and the tax code as far as domestic issues. But I too think he will fail miserably adding that I think most of what he proposed during the campaign is wrong and much it is outright lies and/or manipulations of the truth. I see nothing that tells me this is the man who will "seize the day".

Iraq looks more and more like civil war. It is hard to say whether it is already there, but that is because most of the media in the
US in concentrating on what they call the "insurgency" vs. the coalition troops. There are conflicts and developments amonst the three distinct groups there....shia, shiite, and kurds. Much less reported and hopefully just a blip on the timeline. The Bush administration at least implies that the election there may be a turning point, but when you look elsewhere, the plans for troop deployments going into 2006 for example, might suggest otherwise. The ends justify (or not) the means so only time will tell.

As far as social security he states that private accounts are the best fix. But for who? He also states that he plans to do things without adding payroll taxes. Well it seems to me that the initial debt (plus interest) incurred in what is moved to private accounts has to be paid for somehow. So maybe FICA taxes won't increase but the tax burden elsewhere certainly has to. This plan would most likely benefit me since I have done well in the market, but I don't think it benefits those that the system is truly designed for. Which was at one time myself. My father died young and SS helped my family along until my mother got training for a new career. It also helped myself and sister get a college education. Social security is a safety net that shouldn't be changed to another program that helps the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. All I know is that if I have to pay more into the system, wait longer to collect benefits, or collect less than I put in, so be it because it was well worth not being in the streets begging when the father of my middle class family died twenty six years ago.

As far as tax reform nothing definitive was stated during Bush's campaign. All that Bush stated was buzzwords like closing loopholes,reform, etc. But look at what the Republican Party is now starting to field through conservative radio and other media outlets. I suspect there is still nothing definitive and they are still in the phase of throwing out ideas to collect some information about public opinion. What I am hearing more and more is information about changing over to a consumption tax (national sales tax)in lieu of income tax, something to the tune of 23%. This type of tax does not help those in need, those who live from paycheck to paycheck , or many in the middle class who have children. This would help me in the short term since I am in a position to save and invest a large portion of my income. On the other side it does not help me once I retire since I will not end up in a lower tax bracket at a time when I start pulling from my savings only as needed. Instead of having what I have saved in an IRA and 401K taxed at a low rate because it will only be pulled as I "consume", it will be taxed at what is proposed(again which from what I hear may be 23%) Not to mention this kind of plan may make IRAs useless, and possibly a detriment for some because of the 10% early withdrawal penalty. And if I want to sell my house and move into something better suited to someone retiring a new Condo for instance would be taxed at the proposed rate of the consumption tax. OUCH. It is difficult to analyze something that isn't being given to the public in great detail, but I haven't seen anything proposed on this topic that doesn't make this a shift of the tax burden to the middle class.

So as to the question: Could Bush be the greatest president in recent history? For some maybe he will be , but for the Nation as a whole I seriously doubt it!

Great presidents dont do what you want.  They do what is needed at the time it is needed that corrects a great problem.  Clintonistas would call that luck since he was never tested in office and will be looked at a mediocre to bad president.  Reagan had the opportunity and took it.

Great presidents do not worry about tax reform (your precious loopholes that must be saved are not the same as mine).  But they do handle great domsestic or international issues with the right solution at the right time.

I dare say that many anti-bush people of today would be are are anti-Roosevelt people of 1941.  But such is the price that great leaders must bear.  history will decide their greatness, not polls or any tests that we put to them.  And History will not be influenced by any of the nastiness that goes on today.  That is why we dont judge current or recent presidents as great. There are still too many people with chips on their shoulders.

We will not judge Bush as great or bad. Our children's children will.

And they'll still be paying of the interest from his debt

And they'll still be paying of the interest from his debt

That has been said since our grand and great grand parents.  Are we paying for Mr Roosevelts debts?  Would you roll back the great society, and our contributions in WWII?  WOuld you say he was a bad president because of the debts he rolled up? (which in current dollars is higher)

See what I mean?  Another chip keeper.

But they do handle great domsestic or international issues with the right solution at the right time.

Yes, thank God the problem of not being attacked by Iraq was handled so correctly. I mean, not only do we not capture the guy that took down our towers, we send troops to not capture him with insufficient equipment. We then tell them that "that's the army we have, so tough, we can use you for whatever we want, regardless of how little or undesirable your hardware is."

Yeah, Bush should have a statue.

Yes, thank God the problem of not being attacked by Iraq was handled so correctly. I mean, not only do we not capture the guy that took down our towers, we send troops to not capture him with insufficient equipment. We then tell them that "that's the army we have, so tough, we can use you for whatever we want, regardless of how little or undesirable your hardware is." Yeah, Bush should have a statue.

Your sarcasm is duly noted, and forgotten as it is irrelevant to the topic at hand.  I guess you, being Karnac, have all the answers, but for the rest of man kind, I guess we will have to muddle through just being human.

Your sarcasm is duly noted, and forgotten as it is irrelevant to the topic at hand. I guess you, being Karnac, have all the answers, but for the rest of man kind, I guess we will have to muddle through just being human.

It doesn't take Karnac to know that if you go into a country and have no plans to place troops to bring contol to the territory that you have already conquered that there might be looting and chaos. Dubyah and Co had this great plan that we were going to walk in there like liberators and everything will be hunky dorry. Its a good thing that Eisenhower didn't think that way. But then again, Eisenhower thought ahead to ask for troops to fulfill those duties. The US in Iraq was only worried about the military threat. They made no plans to bring the country to peace.

There is the theory in this thread that all of sudden Bush can stop making the stupid decisions he made throughout his first four years. Is there any reason that we should believe this is going to happen? Based on past history and what he is continuing to do, not only no but hell no.

Your sarcasm is duly noted, and forgotten as it is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Not forgotten enough to be ignored apparantly.

One does not have to be Karnac to know that when Bobby punches you, you don't hit Billy back for it.

Oh another thing.

The topic at hand is George Bush being remembered as a great president. There are arguments for and there are arguments against.

Flinging oneself blindly into an unnecessary war that one's resources are not prepared to handle is an argument against.

Perhaps you misread the definition of relevant.

Flinging oneself blindly into an unnecessary war that one's resources are not prepared to handle is an argument against

That is your Karnac again,as you simply dont know, but must presume to know.  Like I said, read the reports from 1946, and then tell me this in another 30 years.  WWII was unnessary as well since we were not directly threatened.  We could have let Europe go to the Nazis, and ceded the western pacific to the japanese.  Why should we risk our lives for such insiginificant things?

Why?  for the reason I stated, and you fail to comprehend.  Neither you nor I will judge Bush, but the future will.,  I care not of your opinionated assessment.  It matters not since it has no basis in facts, just your opinion.

It doesn't take Karnac to know that if you go into a country and have no plans to place troops to bring contol to the territory that you have already conquered that there might be looting and chaos

Again, you dont know this.  That is your opinion.  And you are welcome to it.  But since you dont know, you must love being wrong.  I dont say I know.  So I cant be said to be wrong.

sure, the greatest president in history killed thousands of innocent iraqis and americans, went to iraq for something that didnt even exist, declared mission accomplished when we hadn't even accomplished our mission, is still there even a year after declaring mission accomplished, ruined the environment, created a huge budget deficit, caused the dollar's value to plunge, lost jobs, won't admit he's wrong, has two whole 365 day calendars of stupid things he's said, choked on a pretzel, fell off a segway, didnt catch osama when he had no way of escape, and sat in a 1st grade classroom reading "the little white goat" while he knew that two planes were hitting the world trade centers?

sure, the greatest president in history killed thousands of innocent iraqis and americans, went to iraq for something that didnt even exist, declared mission accomplished when we hadn't even accomplished our mission, is still there even a year after declaring mission accomplished, ruined the environment, created a huge budget deficit, caused the dollar's value to plunge, lost jobs, won't admit he's wrong, has two whole 365 day calendars of stupid things he's said, choked on a pretzel, fell off a segway, didnt catch osama when he had no way of escape, and sat in a 1st grade classroom reading "the little white goat" while he knew that two planes were hitting the world trade centers?

No one said the greatest. No one said great. No one said murdered.

You did. And your twisted viewpoint. WHy did you even bother to reply? If you are around in another 30 years, try back then. You should be about 40 by then based upon your infantile rantings.

And then maybe you can actually understand the subject.

Again, you dont know this. That is your opinion. And you are welcome to it. But since you dont know, you must love being wrong. I dont say I know. So I cant be said to be wrong.

Not my assumption, there were no troops available to serve as a police force in the conquered territories. Looting was rampant and led directly to popularization of the insurgency.

WWII was unnessary as well since we were not directly threatened.

So now Pearl Harbor never happened? Man you're good at this revisionist history. Japan never threatened us but Iraq did.

Reply #20 By: huncle sam - 12/19/2004 8:46:24 PM sure, the greatest president in history killed thousands of innocent iraqis and americans, went to iraq for something that didnt even exist, declared mission accomplished when we hadn't even accomplished our mission, is still there even a year after declaring mission accomplished, ruined the environment, created a huge budget deficit, caused the dollar's value to plunge, lost jobs, won't admit he's wrong, has two whole 365 day calendars of stupid things he's said, choked on a pretzel, fell off a segway, didnt catch osama when he had no way of escape, and sat in a 1st grade classroom reading "the little white goat" while he knew that two planes were hitting the world trade centers?

Boy, your just full of it across the board aren't you???

and sat in a 1st grade classroom reading "the little white goat" while he knew that two planes were hitting the world trade centers

And this one is just an outright "LIE"!!!

Please show me where I said Pearl Harbor never happened. It slipped my mind that I would ever say that. Also, show me where I said Japan never threatened us. I missed that statement as well.

WWII was unnessary as well since we were not directly threatened.

There you go

So now Pearl Harbor never happened? Man you're good at this revisionist history. Japan never threatened us but Iraq did.

Please show me where I said Pearl Harbor never happened.  It slipped my mind that I would ever say that. 

Also, show me where I said Japan never threatened us. I missed that statement as well.