President Bush has some stiff competition from other post-war administrations that failed — those of John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Richard M. Nixon.
Although George W. Bush is probably not the worst president in U.S. history (Woodrow Wilson may have that dubious honor), the President may be in contention for that title in the post-World War II era. Although he still has two and a half years to go in his term and could conceivably orchestrate a late inning rally, the way he has run his administration to date makes that doubtful. But President Bush does have some stiff competition from other post-war administrations that failed — those of John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Richard M. Nixon.
Because of his charisma and because he died before his time, John F. Kennedy is still a pop icon more than forty years after his death. But most historians believe that the public overrates his presidency. JFK was meek on civil rights and approved the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion by Cuban exiles attempting to overthrow Castro’s regime — only to abandon them after they were under fire on Cuba’s beaches. But his most dangerous actions came before and during the Cuban missile crisis, after which he was praised by many for making Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev withdraw Soviet nuclear missiles from the island.
The Soviets began to install long-range missiles in Cuba, in part, because of fears of a full-blown U.S. invasion. Yet JFK and Robert McNamara, JFK’s Secretary of Defense, acknowledged privately that the Soviet missiles in Cuba didn’t alter the nuclear balance, which favored the United States. The missiles in Cuba reduced U.S. warning time for an attack, but the United States didn’t (and still doesn’t) have an effective defense against missile attacks. When rumors first surfaced of Soviet missiles being installed in Cuba, JFK admitted privately that if he hadn’t made tough public statements that this violated vital U.S. security interests, he could have done nothing about the missiles. And information has recently surfaced indicating that doing something about the long-range Soviet missiles created a greater risk of nuclear holocaust than even the widespread fears of the time imagined. Despite the earlier Bay of Pigs fiasco, JFK was considering the invasion of Cuba as an option (to remove the missiles), this time using U.S. forces. But unbeknownst to him and his advisors, the Soviets had installed short-range tactical nuclear weapons to deter or defend against any invasion aimed at taking out the long-range nuclear missiles being installed. If the United States had invaded, the crisis could have quickly escalated into a nuclear conflagration. Although the favorable U.S.-Soviet nuclear balance was not in danger of being compromised, JFK’s competitive nature caused him to risk incineration of the world in order to best Khrushchev.
Although Lyndon B. Johnson made many more breakthroughs on civil rights than JFK, he started a war in an unimportant backwater region of the world that he knew he was likely to lose (just after the French had been defeated there) because he feared criticism from the right about being soft on communism. The pointless war cost the lives of 58,000 U.S. troops and many more Vietnamese and destroyed the country in a failed attempt to save it from communism. The unpopular war caused widespread domestic unrest in the United States and, in response, prompted government surveillance of its own citizens. Among liberals, LBJ gets credit for the massive domestic spending of the “Great Society” program, but he knowingly threw money at social problems without a clear idea of how the government could be successful in solving them. These programs weren’t successful and most failed.
Despite Richard Nixon’s important diplomatic opening to China and détente with the Soviet Union, the massive corruption in his administration and the misuse of both the FBI and CIA condemn his record as president. Also, before ending the war in Indochina as he had promised, he invaded Cambodia, supported the invasion of Laos, and indiscriminately bombed Vietnam — actions that either violated the Constitution or could be deemed war crimes. In the end, Nixon obtained a diplomatic settlement — a fig leaf for U.S. withdrawal — that could have been obtained four years before, thus avoiding many war deaths.
But George W. Bush can compete with each one of these lesser lights of the presidency. Instead of using all the U.S. government’s national security resources to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, the perpetrator of the 9/11 attacks, Bush invaded an unrelated country, has become bogged down in a quagmire and civil war, and has unintentionally provided a training ground for and fueled the hatred of a jihadist terrorist movement that will probably attack U.S. targets for decades. If he had been president at the beginning of World War II, Bush would have responded to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the Nazi declaration of war on the United States by invading Romania. But surprisingly, this Iraq fiasco is not the most dangerous thing the president has done. He has used the never-ending war on terror to claim unlimited power for the president during wartime. For example, he has flouted the Constitution by detaining prisoners without trial, spied on Americans without the constitutionally required warrants, and blatantly said that he will follow a congressionally passed law against torture when he feels like it.
None of the other post-war presidents have claimed unlimited power during wartime or crises. This is a truly dangerous claim, especially when the war is perpetual. The individual liberties guaranteed to citizens — unique to the American system — could be threatened by even greater future executive authoritarianism. In the Constitution, in reaction to the despotic monarchs of Europe, the founders narrowly restricted the executive’s power. Bush’s arrogant power grab, which attempts to eviscerate the checks and balances that are at the heart of the U.S. Constitution, probably makes him the most dangerous — and therefore the worst — president in the post-World War II era.
I”m going to go out on a limb with this, but I think Chris Crawford might consider switching to decaf.
Chris — I assume you either have administrative permissions or a comments hack. Either way, please consider that batched and backdated comments really makes responding difficult. (Editor's Note: Mr. Crawford has neither permissions or, to our knowledge, a hack into comments.)
Anyway, interesting choice of poll for you to link to. We're talking current events. Why would you link a poll that's more than a year out of date? But even using the antiquated data, I don't think it supports your implication of some flood of support leaving from beneath the war in Iraq. A trickle, maybe. But certainly not "[t]he American people have recognized that the war was a catastrophic error and have turned against it."
Importantly, I don't see the question "Do you believe the war was a catastrophic error?" anywhere in any version of the roughly 100 times the poll you referenced has been given. Please direct me to *that* poll, the catastrophic error poll, if you don't mind since that was your assertion. Or… was the "catastrophic error" bit just your own personal spin, thrown in for added dramatic effect like the little ol' lady in the wheelchair? See there, more support for my contention you'd make a perfect hard news reporter for our current news media outlets! You'd fit right in. Digs aside, I *really* look forward to your link (or lack therof) to the "catastrophic error" poll.
By the way, why not cite a more recent version of the *exact same* WP-ABC News poll, say, one from only a couple weeks ago? You know, the one with the headline and sub head of: "Nation Is Divided on Drawdown Of Troops — Poll Shows Growth In Support for Bush". Nevermind… I can guess the answer.
I agree with a lot of the comments. The essay is a big yawner. If I can’t sleep some night andd can’t find a celebrity poker game I’ll look for the link to this article.
Any serious commentary on the worst presidents since WWII that doesn’t even mention Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton can’t be taken very seriously – it’s obviously highly slanted and at best is insight into the left’s current blah blah blah.
Lighten up on Chris! Yes, Chris has rebutted every single opinion piece posted here for some time. But in my estimation, he has done a good job of it; he has never once resorted to name-calling or insults, and though I don’t agree with everything he’s said, he usually provides good reasons for what he claims.
Most of the time, when people post on blogs or websites of a political persuasion different than their own, it’s hit-and-run trolling: a crude insult, a tired talking point, another insult, and that’s it. They just want to make the other side, their “enemies”, angry. Chris has clearly demonstrated that he’s not here to make conservatives angry; he wants a genuine discussion.
If one of us went to Daily Kos and expressed conservative views in the same rational, calm, intelligent, and honest manner that Chris has, we would be cursed up and down a blue streak, called all sorts of names, and given a three-inch-thick stack of troll ratings. (I read Daily Kos occasionally, and I’ve seen this done, more than once.) Let’s be more fair-minded than Daily Kos. Telling Chris that no one cares about his opinion, that he should shut up, stop wasting bandwidth and switch to decaf– these are comments better saved for real trolls.
Point taken. I apologize Chris – you didn’t invite by your points a personal response about switching to decaf. Personally I can’t drink the stuff.
I do enjoy ‘real’ discussions with disagreeing friends who are intellectually armed. It is a rare event and most of them sound like Chris; stick to the points, keep it organized, and sometimes there actually is a change in opinion in the end but most often there is an enhancement of perspective.
George W. Bush, is in my opinion one of the greatest presidents ever. The United States faces a fanatical and maniacal rage, in the form of Islamic terrorism. You cannot negotiate with these people, let alone come to any reasonable compromise. Since at the time Afghanistan harboured Al Qaeda, George Bush acted quickly and deposed a terrorist regime. The move into Iraq, with the aim of breaking the back of Arab/Islamic despotism, was a stroke of brilliance, costly to be sure but brilliant nonetheless. There is not an Islamic country anywhere which does not seeth with hatred and resentment for the West. In the Islamic mind, the backwardness, poverty and squalor of their societies is the fault of a myriad of Jewish/American conspiracies. For a half century, American money in the form of payments for oil or just plain cash to prop up friendly regimes have not made one iota of difference in the way these people view Americans. With the vast majority tacitly supporting terror, and yet accepting American handouts, it was time to break the vicious psychology of despotism once and for all. Perhaps Bush should take the blame for underestimating the magnitude of the task, but he should be lauded for having the intelligence to recognize the perniciousness of the current situation and the courage and vision to try to do something about it.
The single fact that the majority of Iraqis risked death to cast a ballot, should tell us that George Bush was right.
I’d imagine, or at least I’d hope, based on Chris’ willingness to stay rational and offer support for his points, that he is the type that can give and take a little well-phrased dig or two as long as they’re surrounded by the real discussion. That kinda reparte in conversation makes it more fun. But I do certainly agree that a drive-by “You’re just a big doodoo-head dummy-brain” has no place in intelligent discussion.
I’d have “issues” with someone who simply said, “Mike, you’re an idiot” and left. But, I have no problem with (enjoy, actually), “Mike, that’s by far the stupidest you’ve said in a long time, and here’s why…”
I think most with a bit more than the average share of intelligence, Chris included, would agree.
Oh one point on the subject… well, two.
Since President Bush (the subject of the article) enacted of his tax reductions, the U.S. economy has grown by a full TWENTY percent. That increase in GDP is equal to the entire Chinese economy for example. Not bad for the worst president since WWII.
It seems to me that Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Qada, et al, have never been met with a real response by the U.S. Some examples are that Jimmy Carter just sat for all that time with our kidnapped soldiers, no response to the USS Cole attack, and the first attack on the WTC was never addressed.
I believe that more than any other factors, our lack of response has awakened and emboldened the idea of jihad around the world.
It very well could be that George Bush may never win a debating contest, but he could be the one man who had the courage and the principle-base to act to either shorten or avoid the next world war.
You probably would have hated Abe Lincoln and George Washington. Talk about needless deaths and expensive wars. Take your head out of that liberal dogma, and try using your brain for once…
Regarding the comment that 50,000 civilians have been killed in Iraq and that that means Bush is a war criminal, uh……. I’m just going out on a limb here, but I’d figure that most of those killings were done by Muslims, since they blow each other up everyday. The comment that Bush is a war criminal because Muslims are killing other Muslims just might be the most idiotic comment I’ve ever seen on this place. Rediculous.
Kracken, you may consider me a troll or anything else you like but I will speak my mind regardless. In as much as Chris has the liberty to express himself and his feelings and opinions in a manner which suits him, any one of us has that same liberty also. That you prefer Chris’s mode of expression is fine and dandy but others are not required to do likewise. I’ve read Daily Kos too and this blog isnt even in the same ballpark as Kos so its reference seems alittle strange.
Bush is not my favorite President. There are no impeachable offenses. No deliberate lies. Poor judgement? Perhaps. A “compassionate” (see liberal) conservative, with no foreign policy experience, is given the job of mopping up the mess Clinton’s cowardice left us. Embassies, warships, THE FIRST World Trade Center bombings, and the assasination attempt of a former sitting President of The United States happen and slick Willie’s response is to defer to Monica’s oral argument and invade..Bosnia! Bush may have depended on the wrong camp of neo-cons for War & Peace issues, but Clinton, knowing he was rightfully held in contempt by the military, did not have the ability to show the same thing on the world stage as he did to Paula Jones. The only persons he ever intimidated were women alone with him. Bush wasn’t exactly elected on a mandate! Our enemies percieved that as typical Clintonian weakness. They were wrong. Love your country. Hate your enemies!
I KNOW HOW TO END THE WAR ON TERROR!
It is really quite simple. Think about it, radical Muslims do not fear death. Threatening them with force or death will not work because they are eager to kill themselves, if it kills the infidel. They believe that their reward is in heaven; 72 virgins and all that nonsense. I have come to the conclusion that the only way to defeat them is with the threat of not entering heaven. How is this accomplished? Simple. Muslims have beliefs such as pigs are unclean, so if you consume or contact this animal, you cannot enter paradise. I propose that our government take all the Gitmo prisoners (enemy combatants with no rights under the Geneva Convention by the way) line them up, force them to touch or consume pork, and then execute them. When there is one prisoner left, spare him, and instruct him to tell the radical Muslims of the world what he has witnessed. I understand that this may seem harsh to some, but let us not forget that the Ultimate goal of a war is to WIN THE WAR. And make no mistake, we are in a war for our very way of life. I believe that the threat of not entering heaven will be enough deterrant to dissuade further terror attacks because these potential terrorists will now know what their punishment will be should they be caught.
I'm no legal scholar, but from an everyman's point of view, sometimes the courts make issues so complicated they miss the forest for the trees. [Doesn't the USSC rule on U.S. constitutionality, not international law?] Anyway, as a normal person looking at the Geneva Conventions, I see two glaring things exempting ALL terrorists, and as far as I know, the Gitmo detainees, from the protections of the Conventions.
First is Convention 1, Chap. I, Article 2, Para. iii:
"Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof."
The key is the gargantuan IF in the last phrase — one of many that permeate the Conventions — emphasizing that coverage under that Conventions is conditional based upon reciprocity. Neither the Taliban nor terrorists respect the Geneva Conventions, therefore are not Party to it and not entitled to the protections it affords.
Second is Chapter II, Article 13 which says that those covered must be a member of the official regular armed forces (or an approved civilian assisting the official regular armed forces) and that they must be uniformed and readily distinguishable from the civilian population AND carry arms openly AND "respect the laws and customs of war".
Note the last phrase, another of the many phrase specifying requisite reciprocity. Our enemy's primary weapons are that they are ununiformed, intentionally blend in with innocent civilians (including women and children, which violates yet another part of the Conventions), conceal their arms, and utterly disregard the laws and customs of war.
I invite you to read through the Conventions asking yourself two questions at every turn:
1. Does this describe al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or the "insurgents" in Iraq? And,
2. Does this describe how they have treated the prisoners they have capture thus far?
These are criminals, not warriors, so I know the answers muat be "No" on both counts. So, it's clear to this everyman, at least, that we are not bound to offer the rights and privileges and comforts afforded honorable warriors by the Geneva Conventions.
It seems almost that some folks here are saying, "we have to follow the rules, but they can do whatever they want" as if trying to assign a handicap to make things fair. Why would anybody work to handicap their own country? Either the other team wants to play by the rules or they don't. Period. We're powerful enough, it doesn't matter. Either way we can play their game, by the rules they set… that is, of course, assuming the whiners sitting safely and comfortably at home quit their bellyaching and allow it.
Bush has been a very destructive president. His war has already cost $300 billion and 2500 lives with no end in sight. He plans to pass a nationally disasterous immigration bill during the lame duck session or, if the Democrats retake the House in November, next spring. If Bush gets his sort of immigration bill passed, you can kiss conservatism and the Republican party good-bye.
In my lifetime, the USA has had four terrible/destructive presidents- Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush. Four were mediocre- Jack Kennedy, Gerald Ford, George HW Bush and Bill Clinton. Dwight Eisenhower was above average. Ronald Reagan was excellent.