Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

I've heard people say this quite a lot, and now that a "leading historian" is labeling him as such in the latest issue of Rolling Stones magazine, I feel that this is hyperbole (extravegant exaggeration to those not in the know). There have been worse presidents, and in light of 9/11 and the measures taken immediately thereafter to ensure the safety of our country, I personally feel that the Dubya is far from the bottom. Let's take a look at some of the worst presidents, and also at some who, while their presidencies may have been successful, were marred by some controversial decisions and scandals.

Andrew Johnson

The first president to be impeached, and with good reason. He vetoed just about every civil rights and reconstruction bill passed his way. He was an alcaholic, and prone to making derogatory remarks about the congressmen that opposed him. His actions set back reconstruction by years, and the effects of his racist views are still being felt today.

James Buchanaan

He failed to take action to prevent the Civil War. He sat idly by while the southern states seceeded, and his failure to take action was voted by a group of historians at the University of Louisville as the worst presidential mistake ever made (I know some of you are scoffing, thinking about Iraq, but the consequences of the invasion are still unfolding).

Warren G. Harding

Another of the "mediocre (or worse) presidents", his administration was plagued by corruption. There was the Teapot Dome scandal in which the Interior Secretary leased oil fields to businesses in exchange for private loans. Charles Forbes, head of the Veterans Bureau, skimmed profits, earned kick-backs and sold drugs and alcohol. "My God, this is a hell of a job," Harding once said. "I have no trouble with my enemies, but my damn friends, my God-damned friends. . . they're the ones that keep me walking the floor nights!"

Not So Bad, But Not So Good

William Jefferson Clinton

Two words: Monica Lewinsky. While he was in most other regards a good president, the affair has been argued by some historians as the worst mistake any president has ever made. Clinton's affair with the White House intern left a permanent stain on the presidency (and the carpet).

Franklin Delano Roosevelt

While he has been hailed as one of history's greatest presidents, and while I agree with that sentiment, the firebombing of Dresden and the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki resulted in massive (and in the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, potentially unecessary) civilian casualties. At least 20,000 people (mostly refugees from other German cities) died in Dresden. Between 100,000 and 200,000 died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, most of them civilians. While the bombings were hailed as premature enders of the war, Japan would have likely surrendered anyways, had they known that the Soviet Union had declared war on them. We had nothing to lose by waiting. The Japanese military was in tatters, and they were hardly on the offensive. Had we waited, Japan would likely have capitulated, and Hiroshima and Nagasaki could have been spared.


I think we need to put the current presidency in perspective. After all, our country still exists, there isn't rampant unemployment, and the economy is on the upswing. Afghanistan, once under the Taliban regime, now has a democratic government. Saddam Hussein was a loose cannon in the Middle-east. After all, he invaded Kuwait, launched SCUDs at Israel, gassed is own people (he holds the Guiness world record for this, seriously), and impeded UN weapons inspectors on numerous occasions (think about it: why would he be hiding something if he had nothing to hide?).

In short, before making hyperbolic statements about the Dubya, take a look at some of the presidents of the past, and some of the decisions they made.

P.S. Bush didn't lie about Iraq. Our intelligence was wrong. After 9/11, I don't blame Bush one bit for not wanting to take a chance that Iraq might have nukes and the will and desire to put them in the hands of terrorists.

_________________

Allow me to clear some things up here : FDR did not drop the atomic bombs on Japan. He died month's before that happened. It was Truman that authorized that.

Andrew Johnson was impeached for violating a law that stated that Congress must be the ones to fire a Presidential appointed official. They viewed that since they have the say in who get's hired, they should have the say on who gets fired. This was a cheap tactic to try to get Johnson (who was a moderate Democrat) out of the White House and put a Radical Republican in there instead.


James Buchanaan couldn't really do much while the South Seceeded. He was out in just two months. He was a lame duck. He had no real power.


Clinton did not soil the publics view of Politics. LBJ and Nixon did that quite well 20 years earlier. Do the names "Vietnam" and "WaterGate" sound familiar? The Republicans tried to find everyway possible to get rid of him, and they eventually settled with Perjury. I'm sorry, but that doesn't sound like a high crime or treason to me.


And what about Andrew Jackson? Does "The Trial of Tears" mean nothing to you? He was censured for that.

_________________

Great. Now I feel like an idiot. AND I JUST COVERED THE END OF WWII IN HISTORY! How could I have screwed up so badly?


Ok ADDENDUMB: Truman dropped the bombs on H and N.


Please forgive me. It was late and I was tired.

_________________

I think a lot of people just look for someone to blame. All Government based insults go streight to the President. I don't watch the news much, but isn't it Congress' call whether or not we are at war. People keep on saying "George Bush killed my kid" when (1)there was no draft and (2)the President only comands the military on Congress' terms.

Our soldiers in Iraq were there because they volunteered to be in the military. Just like they say on Star Trek, "We all know the risks enolved when putting on this uniform." And we wouldn't even have troops over there if Congress was opposed to the idea. The President doesn't have absolute power so he shouldn't be blamed absolutely.

Just for the record, I support our troops.

The only problem with that is that people will say "My son signed up for money for College. He didn't sign up to go to war!".
Like you said, though, there are risks associated with putting on the uniform. If you really don't think that signing up for the military (especially post 9/11) will put you in harm's way, one really should question whether or not that "money for college" will do you any good.

You shouldn't sign up for the military expecting to die, BUT, you should definately realize that there are risks associated with wearing the uniforms. You shouldn't sign up for money for college. You should sign up because you think more of others than you do of yourself and because you are willing to lay down your life, if need be, to defend said others.

As far as bad presidents go, I don't think Clinton was that bad. Most of the bad things he did were a result of things Hillary did (Whitewater, for example). There was the whole Monica thing, but what goes on in someone's personal life is nobody's business (granted the perjury resulting was wrong, BUT, like I said, who the president has "relations" with really doesn't affect how things go one way or another). The only real problem I had with Clinton was his stance on gun control. I've never seen a problem with a law abiding citizen (or even some that break laws, depending on the law) owning a firearm.

As far as Bush being "worst ever", that's a bit of a stretch. It's almost as much of a stretch as calling him the best ever. Over all, I'd rate him a "meh...".

I wouldn't rate Truman as bad for "dropping the bombs". In doing that, it's been argued (convincingly) that he probably saved countless lives on both sides (and by countless, I mean a number so large that the number killed in both bombings would seem small).

Personally, I think Nixon was worse than Bush. Of course, I will not ever say someone is the "Worst president ever", because I don't know EVERY detail of EVERY president. Who's to say that there isn't some "great" president that has tons of skeletons in his presidential closet? I don't think Bush has done much worse than any of his counterparts, it's just that he's under so much scrutiny that all of his dirty laundry is aired.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

I disagree. I could post all my thoughts, but it would come out to exactly what Sree wrote.


Plus...you know...he finally got the US out of debt.

_________________

It's supposed to be...but as Commander-in-Chief, the President has the power to say where the troops are to be stationed, etc. The problem with this power is that the President can initiate a war without the approval of Congress first--he can send troops over to a place where he wants to fight and start fighting before Congress declares war. And Congress COULD say, "Hey, wait a minute! We didn't approve of this...so no funding for you or your troops!"

The only problem is...Congress ends up looking ENTIRELY un-American by denying the troops funding for necessary supplies such as food and weapons. Plus, there's the fee of even just getting them back home. And of course, the relationship of any Congress with any President--even if the majority of Congress is the same political party as the current President is--often strays upon the edge of a knife, making any decision that would affect the President and/or his relationship with Congress something that needs to be heavily weighed out. So Congress is essentially forced into a corner where it HAS to agree with the President to go to war, even if they didn't approve.

Oh...and the major two differences between Clinton's one major lie and Bush's multiple lies: 1) Congress was heavily Republican while Clinton was Democrat, so they're as natural enemies as brother and sister; and 2) Bush never swore an oath to not lie...hence why Congress hasn't been willing nor able to convict him of perjury.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

Bush definitely isn't the best president we have had. But it is a pretty big stretch to say he is the worst. I probably could go on a huge tirade about why he is not the worst and who is, but I would pretty much be copying everything said here.

_________________
GENGHIS KHAN!!!!!

You forgot Nixon. Not only was he involved in the Watergate scandal, he denied it, and also have you ever heard of the Kent State Shootings? It wasn't directly Nixon's fault, but the national guard should never have benn odered in. Also Ragan was pretty bad.

_________________
Wow, It's been like three or 4 years since I've last been here

i gotta agree with ramrod about just about everything he posted. i was composing a post while i was reading the initial thread only to see that he said nearly everything i had meant to. and don't talk smack about FDR, he was one of the only presidents that the populace truly cared about. rich and poor, people loved FDR because he really came up with some good ideas to help america get through the depression (thinks social security, the wpa, and so on).

other than that, as far as Dubya? well he's a blundering fool who can't seem to know when to lead and when to play his regular dumb-guy card, but perhaps not the worst president there ever was. despite that statement, i can't exactly think of an example of someone worse. maybe nixon, not so much for his policy (i will concede that he is the one that eventually withdrew from vietnam) but for his brutish abuse of office by treating it like carte blanche for doing whatever he wanted to.

True, his ideas put the minds of Americans all across the nation at ease...but keep in mind that all his initiatives didn't really do much to help out the economy--what REALLY got America out of the depression was going to war in WWII, manufacturing all those materials needed for war and whatnot.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

You're thinking of Truman. FDR brought us out of the Great Depression!

_________________

good point gidley. i guess what i meant was that stuff like the WPA helped to ease people's lives during the depression by giving artists and unemployed artisians and craftsmen jobs, even if they were just symbolic in helping people. WWII did the brunt of the economic stimulation.

Haha, this reminds me of The Colbert Report.

"So, George W. Bush. Great president? Or The Greatest president?

He's one to be forgotten

in my opinion there is 3 types of president's
the good, the bad and the forgotten
the good are like lincoln, FDR(i think so), and clinton(as a president not a person)
The bad-johnson, buchanaan(obvious)
the forgotton-coolidge, harding, pierce
I think in 12 years people will make little refrence to what Bish did

Yeah, really. In 50 years, they will look back on Bush and remember himi solely for these 2 reasons(probably): Messed up elections, and the Iraq War or what ever they are going to call it. I'm not saying he rigged the elctions or anything, but it can't be ignored that we had to do a recount for the first time in, like, a hundred years or something. Bush is an OK prez, but I don't vote so I can't bi...complain.

_________________
Dag, yo.

I think people might remember 9-11, too. And Bush's reaction and immediate actions after that day.

Yeah but there is so much surrounding 9/11 that makes it harder to view as a positive moment.

_________________

Never said it was a positive moment.

But you gotta give it to him I think he reacted pretty well right after 9/11, but the war and a while after 9/11 that's a whole other arguement

This is my opinion.

Because of sin, no one is perfect.

I don't entirely agree...especially when he says stuff like "They attacked us because they're jealous of our freedoms." ...Sorry, but that smells rather piled high and dry to me. If anything, I'd say 9/11 terrorists attacked because they are tired of American arrogance--not because they were jealous of our freedoms.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

That arrogance comes, in part, because of our freedoms.

It's logical to assume that a group of people that give their people no freedoms (women can't do anything, religious disagreement = death, etc) would hate a free people. Of course, nothing about hatred is logical, so I don't know that this reasoning would work.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

No, the terrorists attacked us because they're savage beasts without a shred of common sense or decency. "Tired of American arrogance" is just an excuse for them to splo stuff up, killing thousands of people, and feeling entirely justified in doing so.

_________________

Interesting.

I always find it interesting how hatred. How hatred in it's very simplicity. Has no known purpose behind it.

I believe that everything in this world has a purpose set by the Lord. Including good and evil. Though sometimes, the purpose behind it is not known. Hatred appears to be one of these things.

How very curious.

Hatred, as I understand it, is essentially an amplified and often misdirected form of anger. Anger does serve a purpose: it is the fight response of the fight/flight instinct. It is a recognition that something is wrong coupled with an intense desire to correct it. Hatred, however, is when that desire to correct becomes a desire to destroy.

_________________

<Yoda> Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate... leads to suffering. </Yoda>

He did what?

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm

Noticeably this line:
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16

Clinton may have had a plan to pay off the national debt, but he sure didn't get the US out of debt. (not even remotely close to "out"). I'll admit that things haven't gotten much better in that department though:
04/18/2006 $8,373,602,616,352.62

I have mixed feelings about all of this. On one hand I have the opinion of my father. He loves watching guys like Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Ann Coulter. He is absolutely convinced that the Republicans are doing almost everything right. On the other hand, one of my best friends is quite possibly the complete opposite of my dad. In his opinion, the Bush administration will go down as the most corrupt in the last century. He can't stand Fox News (or any of their pundits), except in the case where they provide good material for the daily show.

My.... I am somewhere in the middle. I hate Fox News, but not because I don't agree with some of the stuff they are saying. I just happen to feel that all of their major "voices" are self-righteous pin-heads. They are out only to get their name known. They be as extreme as possible, simply to get air time. (It reminds me of a story a professor told me... in his department, getting cited in papers was more important than performing valuable or meaningful research. It would benefit you more if you were to write a paper that had out and out lies, and get cited from everyone... claiming that you are an idiot, but still citing you)

The attacks on 9-11 changed a lot of people's opinions. If you look at any popularity ratings, you can see the huge jump in Bush's approval. It gave American's something to hold on to... to unite for. I think if you had asked anyone on the days following, "should we invade Iraq/Afghanastan" to find those responsible for these attacks, you would have received a resounding "YES". Here we are... 3 years later, and people's opinions are/have changed. I think Sadaam was a madman, but I don't know that we needed to have a full-out war to remove him from power.

blah blah blah... insert more meaningless, unintelligible dribble here.

_________________

I think what Acekirby was referring to was not only clinton's plan to pay down the national debt (even trying to do that is quite a feat) but perhaps he was confused with clinton's surplus.

Clinton ran one of the only surpluses on the "national deficit" in quite a very long time. This was due greatly to the dot com boom but also to the general economic prosperity of the 90s which saw unemployment down AND inflation down (something that most economists claim is impossible or at the very least should not happen). so yeah clinton ran a surplus and a lot of people got checks from the government because we managed not to use deficit spending in government. I think that's pretty cool especially since now our debt is larger (but the debt isn't really a very big deal because its money we owe to ourselves, it really is kind of unimportant, unfortunately) and our deficit is astronomical. i don't feel like looking it up but i wonder if our deficit now is larger than FDR's (who really got the ball rolling on trying out deficit spending) if we indexed it to todays dollars. With billions of dollars going to iraq each month... i'd say it's probably pretty big.

oh yeah and about that whole "they hate our freedoms" thing. that's total crap. they resent some things, sure. but that doesn't mean that they are angry because we are free. logically: who on earth actually says, "boy i sure hate being free and hope nobody else is"? i know that many terrorist-havin' countries don't have much freedom, but do you think that terrorists want to be oppressed and that they hate freedom? the only people who hate freedom truy are despotic leaders, and that's because they are the oppressors. in reality they have a great deal of personal freedom, and they would never hate that freedom.

anyway i've gone off on a long tangent but my point is that terrorists hate American foreign policy. sure they resent our freedoms and are very angered by our (and not all of us but i am speaking as how they see it now) general lack of cultural sensitivity and total surplus of ethno- and Americacentricism, but they really resent our foreign policy over the years. this is not simply america's fault and in eality they should be angry at europe greatly too (and they are!) but america is a token presence to be angry at... hmmmm... just like iraqis are a token enemy for us to associate with terrorism. does anyone get me?