Archives

A sample text widget

Etiam pulvinar consectetur dolor sed malesuada. Ut convallis euismod dolor nec pretium. Nunc ut tristique massa.

Nam sodales mi vitae dolor ullamcorper et vulputate enim accumsan. Morbi orci magna, tincidunt vitae molestie nec, molestie at mi. Nulla nulla lorem, suscipit in posuere in, interdum non magna.

Is George W. Bush the worst president ever?

That’s sort of like asking whether the sky is coloured blue or not, isn’t it? But, that’s what Thomas Walkom asks this morning anyway, and then goes on to seemingly answer that question by calling Bush a “unique and unmitigated disaster”. I think most people who aren’t Rush Limbaugh listeners would probably agree. Obviously, some of the other really bad Presidents Walkom lists are hard to compare to Bush to make a proper historical context, but when you see that he combines the failings of several presidents into what he’s done during his tenure, it’s hard to argue that he’s not #1 in that list.

The only thing that might spare him the title is that he did manage to get elected twice, which goes to show you that fear is a powerful tool in overcoming rational thought when a voter steps into a polling booth.

18 comments to Is George W. Bush the worst president ever?

  • Ted

    Steve Johnson:†† How true, how true.

    I spoke with†an Assyrian gentleman who is a Esso service station manager in Scarborough. He†has high praise for†George Bush! Its no wonder, he told me he lost half his†family to Saddam.

    Ask the people of Africa what they think of George Bush, no one has done more to combat Aids.

    Tom Walkom is just being short sighted, behaving in a drive-by fashion.

  • Steve Johnson

    I guess it really depends on who you ask?

    If you ask the victims of Saddam† Hussein over the past 35 years, you would probably hear that Bush is their hero.

    If you ask the terrorists who are destroying the country as we speak, he would agree with you Scott.

    If you ask the troops who are ACTUALLY fighting the war, most would say Bush is a man of principal.

    If you ask Liberals living in Canada you would probably find most hate Bush, but they also would hate anyone that is not a liberal.

    If you ask the province of Alberta, they would probably be split down the middle, seeing how Alberta despises Liberals as much as Liberals despise Americans.

    Seeing how Bush liberated Iraq, and is having the troops do the best they can to rebuild the country, I would have to say that he is a solid leader.

    But if you don’t care about the Iraqi people, (which Liberals never have) then keeping Saddam in power was a better idea than removing him.

    Liberals pretend their all about human rights, but Canadian Liberals did FUCK ALL for the Iraqi people since 1991, and before that.

    And Jean Chretien , up until the last hours, fought tooth and nail to keep Saddam in power.

    I wonder if†Chretien’s family involvment in the oil in Iraq had anything to do with it.

    I mean, why else would you try your hardest to keep a brutal dictator, who raped and slaughtered his own poeple, in power?

    I think the better question would be, is Jean Chretien the worst P.M in Canadian history for doing all he could to keep Saddam in power.

    That is a fair question.

  • Ted

    Steve V
    The mission is not over yet, the surge is working, that is why McCain is the Republican leader, he pushed for the surge long ago.
    Getting back to the topic….Johnson and Carter top my list as worst Presidents last 100 years, Ronald Reagan was the BEST!

  • Tomm

    You guys are arguing the wrong question.

    The right question is "what the hell is Thomas Walkom doing?"

    Bush†IS the President.† Canada has to get along with the US administration.† How†big a prick would Walkom have to be to throw this question out there?

    He gets to polarize Canadian’s, piss off ALL American’s, ask a snotty, rhetorical question with the smugness of unanswerability, and lift his mediocre career another notch with the snarky cynics in†TO.

    The question is better asked whether the tattered credibility of the Red Star has dropped another step, or a full two steps today.

    I think they aught to run a few more columns by McQuaig, just to nail this down.†

    Tomm

  • ALW

    Steve,
    Are you just deliberately ignoring my basic point, or as you so consumed with hating GWB that youíve lost any shred of rational thought process? Iím not even defending GWB here.†I’m just recounting the state of affairs and the position of various parties at the time, prior to the war.
    "You can debate whatever you want, I have no doubt whatsoever…"
    If I had a dime for every time an open-minded, tolerant, sophisticated, rational progressive mouthed those words Iíd be a billionaire.

  • ALW

    You’re arguments are beyond weak.† Why not look at the historical record, the former CIA boss, the anti-terrorism czar, it is beyond obvious that the government what selecting and repressing, based on what supported their crusade.†† You can debate whatever you want, I have no doubt whatsoever that the verdict of history will be near universal.† You’re trying to put lipstick on a pig, knock yourself out, but your view is the fringe.

    Ted

    Oh, it wasn’t a clusterfuck??† Mission accomplished.

  • Joseph Angolano

    "The only thing that might spare him the title is that he did manage to get elected twice, which goes to show you that fear is a powerful tool in overcoming rational thought when a voter steps into a polling booth."

    -You lost me here, Scott. As much as I do not like GW,† I don’t think Americans were hoodwinked in 2004. Bush told everyone what he was going to do, and gave reasons why they should not vote for Kerry, and the American public accepted them. Ockham’s Razor here. The simplest answer is probably the right one. Do I like it? No. It just told Democrats that they had to try harder the next time. Looks like they will get the message now.

    We have to understand that conservatism exists for a reason. It is not because that there are stupid people in the world and we liberals are not them. That is exceptionally arrogant (the same is true vice versa of course). It is just the case that some people are convinced by their arguments of what should be done. A difference of opinion will always exist. If people do not like it, they should leave the political arena.

    That being said, I think Bush’s electoral wins have nothing to do with his track record as president. If that is the case, then Duplessis is the greatest premier that Quebec ever had – who here would agree? Not me.

    I say just look at his track record. We can judge his record now. I can’t think of a President who has been such a colossal failure on both the domestic and international sphere. I say this as a person who likes some past Republican presidents – Eisenhower and Lincoln in particular. In my opinion, Walkom today just states the obvious.

  • ALW

    No, they did not invade, but they did not claim that there were no WMDs. That is the idiocy of revisionists like yourself who all like to claim it was so obvious Saddam didnít have any. Except it wasnít obvious: it was uncertain. Thatís the whole reason the decision to invade was so controversial. Hindsight is 20/20. So you can argue that if we knew then what we know now, we shouldnít have gone. Fine. But you canít pretend we did know then what we know now.

  • "Funny how in retrospect far too many people are trying to be revisionist about who actually said what prior to the war."

    The only one†attempting revision is you.† Did the French, Chinese and Russia invade?† Bush’s legacy is cemented, and yes he is the worst president in American history.† No historian worth his salt, will attempt to salvage the legacy, there’s just too much evidence that suggests failure.

  • Ted

    Whatever happens in Iraq now, it will never rehabiliate the clusterfuck that is Bush.† The Iraq "plot" might not be over, by Bushís horrible legacy is written in stone.
    †I see your on the fence regarding Bush.
    We are talking about who is the worst.
    What about Johnson?†Vietnam…He was so unpopular he decided not to run!

  • ALW

    Steve,
    I donít really want to re-live past battles here, but suffice to say that prior to invasion, it wasnít just the Americans who were saying Saddam was developing WMDs. The French, Russians and Chinese were all mute about it. The debate wasnít what Saddam was doing, it was how to deal with him. Funny how in retrospect far too many people are trying to be revisionist about who actually said what prior to the war.
    Catharine,Isnít it convenient how you can dismiss people drawing conclusions that you disagree with as simply being "manipulated"? But of course when they agree with you, they are thinking clearly?† Sounds like you are making excuses for political results you donít like.

  • catherine

    It is not that people are stupid, it is that certain kinds of advertising and manipulations do affect people, particularly in the absence of a media which is willing and able to present issues. †The attack on Kerry worked and the red alerts didn’t hurt either. †Harris was re-elected in Ontario, using simplistic and misleading sloganeering, †and he left us with a huge debt and an unsustainable downloading.†

  • And, just to prove my point.† While support for the war has increased recently, Bush’s approval ratings have stayed abysmally low, which proves people don’t connect "success" in Iraq with Bush’s legacy- they know he is a failure.

  • Ted

    Whatever happens in Iraq now, it will never rehabiliate the clusterfuck that is Bush.† The Iraq "plot" might not be over, by Bush’s horrible legacy is written in stone.†

  • Ted

    ALW is right, way too early to tell. Iraq plot not over yet.
    Funny how Walkom ignores Jimmy Carter’s 4 years.
    nb.† Ask Bob Geldof what he thinks of what Bush has done for Africa, the media does not seem to care.

  • foottothefire

    ALW’s fetul attempt at a rebut is typical of conservatives who wear flip up rose colored lenses that rise and lower depending upon the politician at hand; George and Steve do no wrong.Bush has a legacy far, far beyond Iraq but lets start our analysis close to Iraq.George buggered off from Afghanisnam to make a little pocket money in Iraq, leaving the UN hanging. George never thinks beyond his dink so diddling an aly in that manner didn’t even register with in his shrunken brain.How about the economy, stupid?† Trillion dollar debt load?† get ready to walk the bread line over that on.How about the outing of Valeri Plame; when the Pres authorizes his draftdodging partner Dick the dick to violate not only the Constitution but specific laws protecting CIA agents,†in an act of revenge.Worst President?????† Worst human being but in defense of the man it’s not because he’s clever or wise, George is the worst man in history simply because of he’s fundementally ignorant, ill-educated and way, way beyond his skill level.In his defense though, there seems to have been a rash of† Georges throughout the world during the past few decades; Milosovic, Mugabe, Zenawi, Pol Pot and amongst others our own Stevie……Georges patsy in Canada.

  • ALW

    What nonsense, the real betrayal was arguing for war, based on manufactured circumstances.† It has been proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, by people who were in the know, that Bush presented faulty logic, supressed evidence which showed no Al Qaeda presence, basically created a false premise.

  • ALW

    Once again, you come perilously close to telling the voting public that they’re stupid.† That is very shaky ground for someone who seems to place great faith in public opinion polls.

    With respect to GWB – I don’t think the success of any President can be measured until quite some time after they’ve left office.† It’s trite to say he’s the worst "ever" when most of us living today only have personal recollection of one or two other presidents.†

    (By the way, when it’s insinuated he’s a bad prez, we all know what is really meant is "Iraq".† But Iraq was a divisive issue: it split public opinion down the middle.† Of those who have now turned on W – and I guess you could in some ways put me in this camp – not everyone thinks the decision to go to war was the mistake.† The mistake was what happened afterwards.† The real lie was his insistence that he or someone in his administration actually had a workable plan to rebuild Iraq afterwards.† The real betrayal was his insistence that he going to pay the necessary price to truly liberate that country.† Instead, they bungled it up spectacularly.† To me, that’s the real disappointment.)

unique visitors since the change to this site domain on Nov 12, 2008.