The 10 Most Awesomely Bad Moments of the Bush Presidency

[HAL 9000 96]

The yardstick of "success" for previous presidents seems to be about whether they left the country in as good or better position than they found it.

As far as Bush goes... it really speaks for itself.

9/11, Destruction of New Orleans, Two ongoing and expensive wars and most recently - a burgeoning economic collapse.

But that will be remembered in another light in the future, apparently.

I say that his 'contribution' to our society will be duly noted and ridiculed even further down the time line.

Bush's legacy rests on the outcome of the Iraq war.

With time and reflection, historians might say that he did a remarkable job. You never know.

Yeah... I probably wouldn't put any money on that given that historians tend to take into consideration the entire package... like the fallacy of the WMD argument as a good analytical starting point overshadowing the entire war.

[mox 298]

Bush's legacy rests on the outcome of the Iraq war.

With time and reflection, historians might say that he did a remarkable job. You never know.

His legacy rests with the domestic and global economy too. Even if Iraq is shown to be a success (it boggles my mind to think of any scenario where that's possible, but hey I guess anything's possible), the global economic mess falls squarely in his lap, fair or not. He simply is not going to be able to dodge his "support the war by going shopping" legacy.

[HAL 9000 96]

And the fact that the war itself was one factor people voted Democrat in the 2008 general elections says a little more.

[nowhereman 1]

What was he supposed to do? By letting Louisiana handle it, he "made a mess of things." If he had the federal government take it upon itself to do everything, he would have been criticized for "overstepping his bounds and usurping control from the Louisiana state government."

As usual, it was a lose-lose situation.

I'll let someone else argue the facts point-by-point because this issue had a fork stuck in it a long time ago. The facts are that the Federal response to Katrina was embarrassingly sub-optimal, and the Director of FEMA was criminally negligent in his duties. I don't think Bush needed to be personally monitoring and directing the response, but when the Federal government fails so spectacularly, I tend to lay blame all the way to the top no matter who's President. At the very least "Heckuva Job Brownie" should be in jail.

Good point.

I believe 20 - 30 years is sufficent time for an objective view (e.g. Reagan).

Maybe, but look at how Reagan has practically become deified, where as during his two terms, he was despised. Time changes many viewpoints. I also think many people are far more forgiving of former presidents than they are of those still in office.

I disagree on Reagan... there was a term called "Reagan democrats", which referred to the large number of moderate democrats who supported him. Ever hear of a Bush democrat? Reagan is definitely in the top 1/3 of all Presidents... I'd put him in the Top 10.

As for Katrina I attended a DSCA (Defense Support to Civil Authorities) conference last year, which is a strategic level conference on DSCA issues. The number one example of total incompetence & utter failure of government at all levels was Katrina. There is a saying in the homeland defense community... all disasters are local. The failure of the Katrina response started at the local level, but Bush was responsible as well (e.g. his FEMA appointee was totally incompetent).

We've improved a lot since Katrina... and Bush can take some credit for this (in another thread someone said Bush never gets credit... well there you go). A leader should have vision... the ability to look into the future and make proactive changes in the present. Bush's failure with Katrina and in many other areas was due to a lack of vision. In my opinion the main reason he lacked vision was that for most of his administration he surrounded himself with yes men (e.g. Alberto Gonzales, Rumsfeld) & got rid of anyone with a different viewpoint (e.g. Powell, Shinseki). Later on Bush added people like SecDef Gates and actually listened to him, but it was too little too late.

[mox 298]

We've improved a lot since Katrina... and Bush can take some credit for this (in another thread someone said Bush never gets credit... well there you go). A leader should have vision... the ability to look into the future and make proactive changes in the present. Bush's failure with Katrina and in many other areas was due to a lack of vision. In my opinion the main reason he lacked vision was that for most of his administration he surrounded himself with yes men (e.g. Alberto Gonzales, Rumsfeld) & got rid of anyone with a different viewpoint (e.g. Powell, Shinseki). Later on Bush added people like SecDef Gates and actually listened to him, but it was too little too late.

You don't get credit for fixing your own f**kup. That's not Bush-bashing, that's just Leadership 101. When you f**k up, you have failed at your job. When you fix your f**kup, you are doing the job you should have done in the first place.

[nowhereman 1]

We've improved a lot since Katrina... and Bush can take some credit for this (in another thread someone said Bush never gets credit... well there you go). A leader should have vision... the ability to look into the future and make proactive changes in the present. Bush's failure with Katrina and in many other areas was due to a lack of vision. In my opinion the main reason he lacked vision was that for most of his administration he surrounded himself with yes men (e.g. Alberto Gonzales, Rumsfeld) & got rid of anyone with a different viewpoint (e.g. Powell, Shinseki). Later on Bush added people like SecDef Gates and actually listened to him, but it was too little too late.

You don't get credit for fixing your own f**kup. That's not Bush-bashing, that's just Leadership 101. When you f**k up, you have failed at your job. When you fix your f**kup, you are doing the job you should have done in the first place.

True but I've seen it many times. For example when I was in OCS (Officer Candidate School) we had a candidate who was sub-par in every category. Later on she improved to the point of being almost average & guess what... she got the most praise of anyone from the cadre! The moral of the story is if you suck & improve even marginally you will be rewarded for it. It's not fair but it's reality.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

The worst moment was when he was sworn in back in 2001.

[Chica Yeyé 41]

The worst moment was when he was sworn in back in 2001.

[HAL 9000 96]

Can't say 'I told you so' enough times.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

The worst moment was when he was sworn in back in 2001.

Or maybe that was the best moment of his Presidency as it went quickly downhill from there?

[ScratchIt 12]

Never "misunderestimate" the Bush legacy!

I find it remarkable that some of you are able to find something good about Bush and his administration but will crucify some of the folks on this forum for being "less than competent" (my term).

"Then you wake up at the high school level and find out that the illiteracy level of our children are appaulling" George II, Washington, DC, 2004

p.s. I think the Condi denial of knowledge of bin Laden's plans while waving the report of his plans around in the air was woefully overlooked in the top 10 list.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I certainly think that #5 was one of the worst things the Bush administration ever did for foreign policy in the middle-east.

[mawilson 2,133]

Yeah... I probably wouldn't put any money on that given that historians tend to take into consideration the entire package... like the fallacy of the WMD argument as a good analytical starting point overshadowing the entire war.

Not really - all that matters is the end result, not how we got there.

[HAL 9000 96]

Yeah... I probably wouldn't put any money on that given that historians tend to take into consideration the entire package... like the fallacy of the WMD argument as a good analytical starting point overshadowing the entire war.

Not really - all that matters is the end result, not how we got there.

Hmm... considering that historians write analytical books, I think they'd disagree with you for the most part.

[mawilson 2,133]

the global economic mess falls squarely in his lap, fair or not.

Why? Seems pretty stupid to hold him responsible for the global financial crisis.

He didn't create the subprime mortgage crisis; if anything, he tried to stop it.