In the twilight of his eight-year term, George W. Bush is the loneliest guy in town these days.
In the twilight of his eight-year term, George W. Bush is the loneliest guy in town these days. Remember him? With the economy in the tank, the Iraq War dragging on with casualties at 2004 levels (which we were all horrified about back then), Bush’s popularity is in the cellar and holding. Republican presidential candidate John McCain is running away from him faster than an Alaskan snow machine. The media has all but forgotten him, as it covers what the two aspirants to replace him have for breakfast, lunch, and dinner each day.
But historians will not forget him and the few journalists who are still paying attention to him are asking if he is the worst president in history. Although hard to believe, the answer is probably no.
True, Bush has failed to catch or kill Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, the al Qaeda leaders who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks, because he got diverted into occupying two Muslim countries in which they are unlikely to be hanging out. Although such occupations (“nation-building” if a Democratic president were doing it) are billed as a necessary part of the “War on Terror,” they have merely inflamed Islamic radicals around the world and increased their terrorist attacks. Maybe even more important, Bush’s War on Terror has also undermined the cherished American system of government by unconstitutionally suspending habeas corpus; enhancing government surveillance of the American public, including unconstitutional spying without court-reviewed warrants; practicing torture; and distorting the constitutional checks and balances by expanding the authority of the already imperial presidency. Yet it could be argued that several other presidents have done worse things.
Although Bush lied us into a war, many presidents have done that, and he appeared to have at least some vague conception that it was in U.S. security interests to do so (even if safeguarding U.S. oil supplies was the real reason). In 1846, President James Polk lied to Congress in starting a war with the much weaker Mexico just to blatantly grab huge amounts of its land — the American Southwest, including California.
In 1898, President William McKinley attacked the frail Spanish Empire to grab its colonies of Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines. He annexed Hawaii to boot. Strangely, the Filipinos were not so grateful about their “liberation” from Spain. They started a guerrilla war when they found out that instead of gaining their independence, they were going to become the anti-colonial United States’ first colony. In the U.S. repression of the insurgency in the Philippine islands, about 200,000 Filipinos died from torture, atrocities, combat, starvation, and disease. The Spanish-American War made the U.S. a military power and began the long quest for an U.S. overseas empire. The war also allowed McKinley to become the first modern president — that is, permanently expanding the president’s powers (vis-à-vis the other branches of government) past what the nation’s founders and the Constitution had ever envisioned.
In making the world safe for war, autocracy, and colonialism, President Woodrow Wilson helped ensure that the 20th century was the bloodiest in human history. Although the late U.S. entry into World War I tipped the balance in favor of the allies, Wilson frittered away his negotiating power in the post-war peace conference by allowing the British and the French to impose a harsh peace on the defeated Germany in order to get their support for his feckless League of Nations. The allies grinding Germany’s nose in the dirt brought Hitler to power and caused World War II. Wilson also paid the Provisional Government in Russia to stay in the bloody World War I, thus causing the revolution that brought the anti-war Bolshevik party to power. Wilson then sent U.S. troops to try to defeat the Bolsheviks in the Russian civil war, which contributed to the suspicions that caused the eventual Cold War with the Soviet Union. Wilson, the most interventionist president in U.S. history, also conducted many military interventions in Latin America, mostly to help U.S. business interests. He also was the first president ever to mobilize the entire U.S. economy for war and was thus the father of permanent big government. Wilson’s violations of civil liberties during World War I were the worst in U.S. history and make Bush’s look fairly mild.
Although the United States went back to its wise traditional foreign policy of military restraint during the interwar period, Harry Truman brought back Wilsonian interventionism permanently after World War II. Truman set very bad precedents by purposefully bombing to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians in World War II and the Korean War; unconstitutionally fighting the Korean War without a formal declaration; creating the military-industrial-complex that led to the first large permanent peacetime army in U.S. history; expanding his powers as commander in chief by attempting to seize private steel mills; and establishing the current informal U.S. empire of overseas alliances and military bases, foreign aid, and profligate U.S. military interventions to police that realm. In other words, Truman permanently buried the traditional U.S. foreign policy of military restraint.
Make no mistake. George W. Bush has been a horrible president and is one of the worst in U.S. history. But of the 42 men who have served as president, these four men — Polk, McKinley, Wilson, and Truman — were probably worse.
he’s not the worst but he won’t be fondly remembered. he earned his low popularity for a reason. the long term damage to the economy and our national debt is still playing out so history isn’t written yet. however, as far as damage to public trust, banks, the housing market, etc.. it all happened on his watch and he failed to respond. bailouts are not a proper response. enforcing the rules already on the books to prevent these things from happening are.
This is what happens when you start out your analysis by wishing the world was filled with nice people, and building your policies around those wishes. It makes you feel good for being a nice person with nice thoughts, but as a realistic appraisal of history, or a practical guide to action within the real world, it’s completely inane.
This is how you conclude that Jimmy Carter was a great president, and George Bush and Harry Truman were among the worst in history.
What! No mention of Lincoln with habeas and Andersonville or FDR with Japanese internment camps? If you want to attack Bush please think about his coddling of Islamists and his failure to stop creeping socialism.
The Iraq War sent a message, and that was that under Bush, America was not going to tolerate behavior that was conducive towards terrorists and that threatened America. Iraq was one nation, but the impact was felt in North Korea and in Iran. If you think the liberals were worried about a war with Iran, how do you think Iran felt? Or would we be better off in a world where Iran has a nuclear development program?
The Iraq War is criticized because there was “no valid reason” to go to war. After a decade of laughing in the face of weapons inspectors and the UN sanctions, do you really think Saddam had good intentions and that sanctions would have really hampered his efforts?
Could the war have been handled more efficiently? Most certainly. But time will tell what Bush’s legacy will be, and I have a feeling that the next president will also help paint that picture.
Yes Anderson, North Korea and Iran, but what about Libya and Kadafi?
No, Bush is not the worst president. No, he’s not in the bottom 5. In fact, I would say Bush is exactly one Obama presidency and one homeland terrorist attack from making the Top 10 best presidents. And possibly the last brave one before the nation descends into chaos.
This site is supposed to be for intellectual conservatives. Not intellectually lazy ones, who spew the same garbage that can be heard any day on Democracy Now!
Ivan,
Actually, Libya only reinforces Anderson’s point, and I have to agree with him. When Bush declared war on terror, warned terrorist sponsors they must either stand with us or against us and then invaded Afghanistan, Qaddafi did an about face. Suddenly, he was tripping all over himself to be our ally, kicked terrorist out of Libya, and helped close down their networks. Lately, he’s reverting a bit, but overall the effect has not been wasted. Qaddafi realized he must be high on our hit list and did everything necessary to get off that list. Even Syria was more cooperative during the lead up to Iraq (though less so recently). Pakistan is another former sponsor that might have made things hard for us, but chose to play along.
When taking the measure of a past president, it is useful to view him in terms of what might have been had the other guy won, not just his failures or shortcomings. Consider had Al Gore been president and reacted in typical spineless fashion. We might still be scratching our butts wondering what to do, these same countries would be openly supporting terrorism, and we’d be begging them to turn over bin Laden (or maybe not). I’d say we were fortunate. Maybe it could have been better, but, man! It could have also been worse!
JV,
Don’t assume because Mr. Eland posts here that he is conservative. He isn’t. He contributes the same articles at liberal venues and his homepage. He and his fellows declare themselves to be independents, but Mr. Eland is more partisan than others at the Independent Institute, and is decidely anti-Bush and anti-war.
This article presents a combination of poor research and naiveity. I was very young when Truman had the bomb dropped and I can tell you our family was happy. Why? My uncle (flew 78 missions over Europe as a tail gunner…what was their average life expectancy stated in missions?) and was about to be sent to the Pacific theatre due to the shortage of bomber crews. Now that you know my bias I will continue.
As I review presidents Carter, Kennedy, Grant, Clinton, FD Roosevelt fall at the bottom of the pile, each for different reasons. Toward the top over time will be Truman, Nixon (believe it or not), T Roosevelt. Guess a ranking by the feel good give the bad guys anything they want would be different from mine. Bush will fall somewhere in the middle of the pack dropped by his inability to protect the country from invasion by anyone willing to wander across the border.
If I took the premise of the article seriously it seems to me that Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Hawaii, Florida, California, North Carolina, Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, and others should be returned to their rightful owners. Hmmm maybe that is not a bad idea at least in the case of California.
Bob writes: “Libya only reinforces Anderson’s point”
Yes, Bob, that’s what I was trying to say. Did I screw it up again?:>) It’s just that I find it amazing that even people on our side can forget these things.
And Mickey: I recently found a document that showed my father was westbound on an LST, 500 miles off the coast of Japan on August 6, 1945. Had Truman not ordered Tibbits to fly the Enola Gay that day I might have been without two brothers and a sister. God bless Harry, Paul, and George.
You know you’ve officially entered bat country when you think that failing to rank George W. Bush as the worst president in United States history is profound in its objectivity.
I don’t know why the editors here insist on continuing to subject us to Eland’s trite and regurgitated musings. It would be easier to just republish the article he wrote the week after the Iraq war started once or twice a week — he hasn’t written anything original in his career, and hasn’t even bothered changing up his standard article template since then.
That is bizarre to say that George W. Bush is the worse President in US history. Mr. Eland your grasp of history and your wont to make arguments based on headlines is ludicrous.
Mr. Eland are you aware that President Bush is only the second President in the history of this nation to wage a two theater war?
Are you aware that under President Bush the nation’s economy suffered the single worse day in its history? That during the period of September 11, 2001 and September 16, 2001, over one trillion dollars was torn out of the economy. Did you factor this into your equation? It was the greatest loss of capital that any nation ever suffered and lost it in less then a week.
Did you know that under President Bush this nation had 49 continuous months of employment growth. That is the longest consecutive period of employment growth by any nation in the history of this planet.
Were you aware of all of this Mr. Eland? Humm? If you weren’t then your words were nothing more then an exercise in bigotry and ignorance.
There is more I can point out to you. Much more I can point out to you but when dealing with someone with a closed mind it is not worth the effort.
Jack
Jfking:
I agree with all of your points (exactly!), except for one: there have been numerous Presidents who have waged multiple-theatre wars.
For example, Washington was in command of forces that were fighting in and around New York; near Saratoga; in the Carolinas.
During the war of 1812, Madison was in command of forces widely separated by geography: Northern New England and New York; the Michigan penninsula; the Atlantic coast; the Gulf coast.
Lincoln was in command of forces that were fighting in the Mid-Atlantic Theatre, in the Western Theatre, and along the Gulf Coast.
And, finally, McKinley was in command of forces fighting in both Cuba and in and around the Philippines.
All that being said and done, however, raises an interesting point: of most of the nations of the world, few have been able to pull off multiple-Theatre conflicts. In this, it is beginning to look very much as if GWB will join their ranks. I laud him for being able to do so. Those kind of affairs are difficult to stage-manage and bring to a successful conclusion, but we are well on our way towards doing so.
Patrick,
If the object of discourse was to exclude those we disagree with and obvious fools, we’d soon become an echo chamber and a boring one. I suspect our hosts have some difficulty getting writers with opposing views, intellectual depth, and stamina to submit their articles to our withering fire (no doubt prefering ‘safe’ venues where all they hear is applause).
Forgive my ignorance of the full histories of each of the cited presidents’ tenures, but I have to wonder, given the events of the past week or so, whether any of them also presided over massive economic collapses directly attributable to their economic policies.
“When taking the measure of a past president, it is useful to view him in terms of what might have been had the other guy won”
Interesting point, Bob. Consider that Al Gore would likely have kept his pulse on the terrorist activity intelligence the way that the Clinton administration did, taking seriously the warnings of folks like antiterrorism czar Richard Clarke. In doing so, he might not have blown off the memo “Bin Laden determined to strike in US,” telling the agent who delivered it that he could go, now that he had covered his ass. It is indeed very possible that under President Gore, the 9/11 attacks might have been thwarted. Kind of puts Bush in a different perspective, doesn’t it?
Whether your an economic doom-n-gloom believer or pusher, I am not going to lie to you and say that the economy is doing fantastic, because we are seeing lenders go down. That should not be a shock since they were fiscally irresponsible and are paying for their misdeeds. However, this does not equate an economic collapse. The dollar has been rising, and continues to. Our economy isn’t failing, one sector is. Lighten up.
If Al Gore would’ve kept the same guys around, then wouldn’t the plan have been the same? “Ok, we’ve been bombed, so uh… let’s indict them and just wait for them to show up on our shores, ready to face trial.” Yeah, the 1993 WTC bombing really showed us a lot. Then, in 2000, the USS Cole bombing, we really showed those terrorists who’s boss! And all the while, the intelligence the Clinton Administration had pointed out where Osama Bin Laden was. He wasn’t hiding in caves, he was out in the open. It would’ve been an easy assassination or capture, depending on your taste. That information went to waste as well. So what exactly would have Gore done?
It is not just the Presidents. Behind all these bad ones is a force or cabal controlling them to do their bidding. You can see the ever-unfolding agenda manifest over the decades. Until that secret Elite group is exposed, not the least of which are the international bankers, we will continue to have “bad” Presidents.
Anderson,
You forgot to mention Clinton not only had the intel, but he had bin Ladin in the bag and refused to take him down. Clinton further reacted to the Sudan debacle by beating a hasty retreat when a quick reinforcement and strong persecution of objectives would have both restored order to the country (saving countless lives) and sent terrorists like bin Ladin packing with a clear message there’s a new sheriff in town. DK also doesn’t mention Hillary testified the Bush intel was solid (because it came right out of Bill’s own NSA assessments) and voted for invasion, before she bailed and voted against funding a war she had helped unleash. As of 9/11/2001, the intelligence estimates were essentially unchanged from the Clinton watch, and, because of the still unresolved conflict with Iraq and funding cuts going back three decades we had no real assets inside Iraq that could help revise that assessment before invading. As far as we could tell and projecting from the Clinton intel, Saddam was a threat we couldn’t ignore while operating in the area to capture bin Ladin. Before 9/11 we would have dealt with Saddam by tightening the noose around him. In part, that was because we could not count on the Saudis, Gulf sheiks, Russia, and the Stans to aid us in keeping Iraq isolated (lots of smuggling going on, including weapons contraband). After 9/11, we had that support, so an invasion that would eliminate the threat and resolve the unfinished business of Iraq-1 looked like a far better option. The longer Iraq remained closed to inspection, the less meaningful these estimates became; leaving us to assume the worst, and, by extrapolation, Saddam could have been close to having significant WMDs. Had we not invaded Iraq, we’d still be pondering just how close Saddam might be to having WMDs, far more hampered in catching or containing al Qaeda, and with no other realistic option for stabilizing the region – and the opportunity would have been squandered. This was not solid intel (Bush inplied as much at the time), it was a calculation based on data some of which was faulty and some that was dead on. More importantly, it was the right strategy regardless how many WMDs Saddam had squirreled away.
Clinton made little real effort in the mid-1990s to improve reportage inside hostile terrorist-friendly nations despite threat-estimates that made terrorism the most significant threat then facing us (apparently more serious than North Korea, going by Clinton’s dealings with NK). If we go by both Hillary and Bill’s unvarnished statements prior to leaving office (and for some time after, Iraq was harboring terrorists and flagrantly developing WMDs in violation of the truce terms and multiple U.N. resolutions. Clarke’s own version of the intel morphed over time as he first supported and then condemned plans to invade. He supported it when it was Clinton’s turn at bat, but condemned it under Bush. Before the 9/11 commission Clarke was perfectly willing to let the ‘false’ impression of a threat stand. Probably he did so knowing no action would be taken but hoping to bolster intel funding. Only when questioned by the Senate committee did his earlier strong support begin to erode. All this makes Clarke’s testimony, if believed, CYA for his own earlier handling. Clarke claims he tried to warn Bush before 9/11, but only Clarke seems to believe that.
“Gore would have kept his pulse on terrorist activity …”, and little else beyond some hand wringing and denounciation in vague and impotent terms. A prosecution without teeth is the same as no prosecution. It was Clinton’s impotence that encouraged bin Ladin to have at it. I really am much less concerned Bush may have acted from faulty intel (none is ever perfect) in condemning Saddam than I am pleased he did not continue the impotent policies of Clinton. As far as I am concerned, Saddam put up a pretty good show he was a threat and abetted our enemies, if not on this score than on others. The man was a menace to us and his own people, and I am glad he and his whole rotten bunch are now historical footnotes.
DK is reading from the white-washed version of events meted out by the CYA liberal media. We forgive your ignorance, DK, but not the blatant attemps at misrepresenting history by editorializing out the inconvenient parts.
“I have to wonder, given the events of the past week or so, whether any of them also presided over massive economic collapses directly attributable to their economic policies.”
Had there actually been an economic collapse this week, and had it actually been attributable to the president (who, contrary to popular belief, doesn’t set monetary policy or control the Federal Reserve, which is a primary factor in the financial problems we are presently dealing with), probably the closest analogy you could find historically to your imagined scenario would be Franklin Delano Roosevelt — the only difference is that he waited until after an actual economic collapse to begin instituting policies and usurping authority never granted to the executive branch in order to further an economic agenda that kept the United States in a massive depression for about 8-10 years longer than the rest of the world. Another close example might be James Earl Carter — he didn’t quite preside over an economic collapse, but did oversee an economy that had double digit inflation and unemployment both at the same time for most of his presidency. Arguably much closer to an actual “collapse” than what his happening today, which is more akin to the S&L meltdown of the 1980′s.
Considering your admitted ignorance of history, it shouldn’t be surprising that your assessment of national security and terrorism during the Clinton administration is about as accurate as your assessment of our current economic situation. How the national security experts who oversaw the commission of probably more terrorist actions against the United States than any administration in history (1993 WTC bombing, African embassy bombings, 1996 Olympics bombing, USS Cole bombing, Oklahoma City Federal Buidling bombing…) would have prevented 9/11 from happening is… interesting to contemplate, to put it mildly.
“The longer Iraq remained closed to inspection, the less meaningful these estimates became; leaving us to assume the worst, and, by extrapolation, Saddam could have been close to having significant WMDs. Had we not invaded Iraq, we’d still be pondering just how close Saddam might be to having WMDs”
That’s a convenient bit of revisionist history, given that Iraq was open to inspectors. The one thing Bush did right was get authorization from Congress to act if Iraq didn’t cooperate. It showed Saddam that Bush wasn’t f*cking around, so he opened the doors wide, even to his palaces toward the end, and the inspectors found bupkus. If Bush had given the inspectors time to finish their work (big country, lots of hiding places), then Bush’s war authorization bluff would have been brilliant. Instead he unilaterally withdrew them and launched a foolish and unnecessary war.
“which is more akin to the S&L meltdown of the 1980′s”
Speaking of which, isn’t it interesting that your candidate, a perennial champion of deregulation, good old “Keating Five” McCain was in favor of the regulatory environment that produced the current meltdown right up until a day ago or so? Only after the taxpayers were forced to buy an insurance company for $85 billion, and people started laughing when he said, “the fundamentals of our economy are strong,” did he finally flip flop and start talking about increased oversight.
“That’s a convenient bit of revisionist history, given that Iraq was open to inspectors.”
Pot, meet kettle. Iraq was as open to inspectors in 2003 as North Korea is today. UN inspections in 2003 would have been exactly as effective as they were for the previous 12 years since the first Gulf War. Turns out Saddam Hussein wasn’t a totally forthright guy all the time. Go figure.
“Speaking of which, isn’t it interesting that your candidate, a perennial champion of deregulation, good old “Keating Five” McCain was in favor of the regulatory environment that produced the current meltdown right up until a day ago or so?”
First of all, “I” don’t have a candidate, anymore than “I” have a football team for whose victories I take personal credit (“we” won the Super Bowl!). Try to wrap your mind around the fact that not everybody participates in a quasi-religious hero-worship of their political party and refers to political candidates as if they are part of one singular entity.
That said, what precisely was deregulated in the 1980′s that caused irresponsible mortgage lending, leading to a massive loss of value in the housing market and mortgage-based securities and led to a credit crunch and bank failures? I see you’re doubling down on that ignorance of history. Incidentally, it seems “my candidate”, Mr. Keating 5 himself, sponsored legislation back in 2005 (the “Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005″, in case you care to inform yourself) addressing the coming crisis with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — a bill that was killed in committee by… take a guess now.
Deregulation is very much desirable if one prefers free markets. Obviously, Democrats desire a command economy, centrally planned by the federal government, so what we’re dealing with is a matter of differing perspectives. Free markets regulate themselves based upon success and failure. Attempting to regulate the risk of failure out of financial markets is no better a solution than subsidizing failure after it happens. Personally, I don’t really see how a guy who doesn’t know what “AIG” even stands for, whose only idea for addressing such a situation is to “regulate Wall street” (which is as much as plan as “make it better” is), and who accepted over half a million dollars from Fannie and Freddie brass, is any better equipped to handle the economy than, well, anybody.
Rather than idiots and conspiracy theorists, here’s how a real writer and thinker currently ranks our present president.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NmZmNzFjNDU5OWIyZTdiYzRiMTU5ZGQ5Y2VmNDFjZTk=
It’s not about creating an echo chamber– that is surely what has happened to make these so-called conservatives sound like leftist puppets– but instead to show a subtely and nuance of thought completely absent in this article and so many others that hysterically, not historically, call Bush at or near the bottom of a worst presidents ever list.
As Krauthammer says, history will judge Bush far more kindly than we do now. What he doesn’t say is also true. History will judge his critics very harshly. Since they were more like children kicking and screaming about a little needed medicine than mature adults debating on the need for it…
To express it in a non-partisan way, anyone who rates Carter as a better president than Truman is no judge of presidents, and (of course) no conservative.
This is a real shotgun piece and cannot be refuted in a “comment.” However, GW Bush is largely a victim to the “personalization” of politics that began with the demonization of Nixon, was echoed in the hysterical attacks on Clinton and culminates in the attribution of “all failures” in recent years to one man, GW Bush. This is a silly way of looking at power and represents the triumph of “middle class” politics, ie. whatever you say about the distribution of a country’s resources, it better be “nice” and involve nothing “uncivil.” Obama’s belief that he can simply sit down w/ Iranian mullahs and, after a nice chat, convince them to give up their believes is naivete of the same stripe. But it makes perfect sense–if GW Bush can be responsible for all evil, why can’t Obama be imagined to be the source of all good?
Assuming at some point politics come to be taken seriously in the country again, Bush Jr. will probably be assessed as a successful wartime leader, which was the burden history imposed upon him. It will be acknowledged that he prevented the country from further terrorist attack and enlised the globe in a “war against terror,” a coalition much more impressive than his father put together.
A later period will assess Bush Jr’s critics less favorably. Having failed to acknowledge his military and political success in protecting the nation from terrorists, they attacked his character and judgement. The current democrat obsession with “personality” instead of politics will be seen as a symptom of their lack of a serious political response to terrorism. Hopefully another attack will not be what is required to get our attentions back onto what matters, ie. politics.
Denial of madness.
President Bush is not the worst president, but he may well be the unluckiest. He has faced three of the worst crises in the country’s history — 9/11, Katrina and now the financial crisis.
In each case, he has been ill served by advisers and at times his own instincts.
9/11 — we have had no attacks on our soil, for which he deserves credit, but Iraq was not well managed by his team or the military.
Katrina had very little to do with the president — Democrats at the state and local level were more at fault, but the president should have taken charge sooner and demanded immediate accountability.
The financial crisis likewise has little to do with the president, for he, McCain and others questioned the implications of the housing bubble and how it was being managed, but of course the media, rather than looking at Congressional management, are more interested in ensuring that Bush gets blamed.
Bush has likewise been undercut by his own party — he was mostly right on immigration, but conservative die hards crucified him. Most of the deficit is the result of our military engagements, but the president, rather than the Congress, seems to take much of the heat for spending. Our financial situation is complex and no president can micromanage the forces in play, but now die hard conservatives are sabotaging the Paulen plan — financial analysts I talk to say they had better do something or risk putting the entire system at risk.
The Bush record has been mixed — but he has been ill served by a media that gives him credit for nothing. USA Today on the anniversary of 9/11 wrote a long editorial that acknowledged how amazing it was that we had not been hit again, but did not give the president even a brief mention for playing a role in that happy circumstance. The president is hardly to blame for the inepitude of Democrats in Florida (2000), Lousisiana (Katrina) or in Congress (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac).
But Bush has become the Judas Goat for all those who do not want to hold themselves accountable. He will never be considered one of our great presidents — luck has not been on his side — but then when the likes of Paul Begala call him a high functioning moron, you begin to understand the kind of people with which the president has been forced to contend the past eight years.
There is really no need for them to land on the Whitehouse lawn when their feet are already under the desk. – A. Hennessey.