Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
D'oh! Bush Way Worse Than Nixon
usnews.com — Zogby tells us that Bush is considered by voters the biggest presidential failure in the past 60 years. His failure rating: 30.2 percent, far more than Nixon's 23 percent. Zogby's polling asks voters simply to rate the presidents as great, near great, average, below average, and failure. We'll just focus on the "great" and "failure" ratings 4 prez
zaibatsu- 1236 diggs
- digg it
- stripe64, on 10/12/2007, -14/+100ONLY 30.2% that is WAY TO LOW
- twertyto, on 10/12/2007, -24/+5Useless data... recentism.
- daRoach, on 10/12/2007, -32/+17D'oh! Political troll made it to the front page.
- Shuk, on 10/12/2007, -3/+37I prefer the sophisticated research model of Stephen Colbert.
"Bush: Great president or... the greatest president?" [Digg users rant] "Ok I'll put you guys down for 'great'." - JoCliMe, on 10/12/2007, -20/+23I'm sorry, but people easily forget. We say that Bush is the worst president because that's who we remember. I don't care if you were living throughout all these presidencies, you still remember the most recent. If the next president is a bad one, I'm sure there will be similar polls, showing similar thoughts.
- bmeckel, on 10/12/2007, -19/+14Nixon wasn't a bad president! ok so he lied about wiretapping, now we think NO other president has done that, sure. He ddin't deserve that rating, where as bush does
- GuyHersh, on 10/12/2007, -23/+16checkmate0:
No, we're digging you down because you're a moron. Why would you believe an independent documentary with "truth" and "facts" in it over what we all ***** saw on that day. Planes definitely flew in those buildings, Arab hijackers flew them as we have audio from united 93. And yes, I've heard the conspiracy theories of the "planned demolitions" and "explosion". People are trying to make a case out of nothing because they hate bush so much they want to pin everything they can on him. I'm pretty sure if the government did hire someone to plant explosives, that information would've gotten out.
You must really hate this country if you want to believe that *****, get out of my country please. - Skizmo, on 10/12/2007, -11/+1"I'm sorry, but people easily forget. We say that Bush is the worst president because that's who we remember. I don't care if you were living throughout all these presidencies, you still remember the most recent. If the next president is a bad one, I'm sure there will be similar polls, showing similar thoughts."
Normally . . that's true .. .but for Bush we make a exception. - GuyHersh, on 10/12/2007, -13/+10checkmate0:
Also, I'm ***** LIVID that you dared to say that we "support Bush attacking our country" because we buried you down. Are you that ***** full of yourself and the conspiracy you believe in? We buried you we don't BELIEVE IN THAT *****.
God people are stupid.. - ElCazador, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3OK, several replies:
@stripe64:
I believe you meant way TOO low.
And I don't think it's low enough, but that's just my opinion. And opinions are what polls are all about.
@checkmate0:
I'm sorry, did I miss something? When exactly did Hitler attack his own country?
I'm not defending Hitler (sorry, Trolls!), just questioning one of the many 'facts' you claim...
And you misspelled "naive". Ironic, don'tcha think?
@twertyto:
Bravo! Well said! - elnerdo, on 10/12/2007, -9/+16People, checkmate is a troll. All he wants are responses. Don't give him the satisfaction. Ignore him. Block him. Forget him.
- GuyHersh, on 10/12/2007, -12/+7checkmate0:
I'm gonna start civilized rebuttals to your videos
To the first one about bush seeing the first plane hitting the tower:
I'm pretty sure he meant he saw the news coverage ABOUT a plane hitting the tower, and he wasn't meant to be taken literally. You know he never talks correctly.
About the 2nd video with Rumsfeld saying Flight 93 was shot down:
Could have just misspoken as he was talking about other bombings right before it, or could have let something slip off his tongue, hard to say.
The 3rd link about the Rumsfeld saying a missile hit pentagon:
Same as above, its peculiar that he said that. However, I've seen evidence showing a plane hit just as much as I've seen evidence showing how it couldn't have hit it. I'm indifferent on the matter because we don't have enough proof either way.
The 4th video telling Guliani it was going to collapse. The key word there is "collapse" not "destroy" or "implode". I'm pretty sure they were looking out for peoples safety and provided an educated guess that it was going to collapse soon.
The 5th link saying Silverstein ordered demolitions. If thats true, apparently the decision was up to the fire department commander and him, because thats what he said in the video. That doesn't indict the government at all.
So I'm sorry, theres not enough proof for me here to say that the 9/11 in its entirety was planned by the government. Sure, some things are fishy, but I'm not going to believe the government did the whole thing on purpose. - martalli, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11"ONLY 30.2% that is WAY TO LOW"
He still has a year and a half to screw things up worse - that's what the other 69.2% are waiting for...or maybe I should say 39.2%. As long as he still says he is a republican, he still seems to get about 20-30% support levels from people I can only think of as partisans or ideologues. - sych0, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1I think the poster meant to say was "D'uh"
- GuyHersh, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3LMAO checkmate0:
I'm not even gonna go through your last post, but I like the one item you used as proof:
3. Bin Laden First Said He DID NOT DO IT!
Funny how you believe Osama, a known terrorist, over your political leaders and everyone else in this country who has half a brain.
You must really have it out for this country... - stonewaljacksn, on 10/12/2007, -8/+6um, there was never any doubt that Bush is worse than Nixon was.
- jcm267, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9"I'm sorry, did I miss something? When exactly did Hitler attack his own country?
I'm not defending Hitler (sorry, Trolls!), just questioning one of the many 'facts' you claim...
And you misspelled "naive". Ironic, don'tcha think?"
Reichstag - dissident, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2The buildings were brought down with explosives and it was a planned false flag operation. I didn't know there were still people that thought the planes brought them down. By the way, I'm not saying Bush planned the false flag operation, but it was a false flag operation.
- Mnkymen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Just to show how blind "checkmate0" has been made by his hatred for President Bush and desire to believe in grand conspiracies, take a look at #4 of his so called evidence as to why 9/11 was a "false flag attack". He says for #4, that "at least 4 hijackers turned up alive" and then gives two links to BBC stories that were written less than two weeks after the attacks on September 22 and September 23 of 2001, in which they discuss a couple of the 9/11 hijackers said to be on the hijacked planes showing up alive and well after the attacks. But these same BBC stories that "checkmate0" linked to have updates to the story at the bottom of the page, in which it talks about how the early confusion over the hijackers being alive was wrong and this confusion over the identities "may have arisen because these were common Arabic and Islamic names" and that the BBC has "superseded" these earlier reports (the ones checkmate was so eager to link to). It even discusses how 9/11 conspiracy theorists have used this early confusion to support theories of an elaborate government/Bush cover up. "Checkmate0" is a good example of people choosing to acknowledge information and evidence that supports their viewpoints, but then discarding the information that goes against their beliefs.
- kolobcreek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4NIXON GOT US OUT OF VIETNAM. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
- Charlotte_Web, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Polls are meaningless. We elect presidents to make the tough decisions, to steer us through difficult times. How many presidents during the last 60 years were handed a 9/11 incident?
And here we are, after a recession, after 9/11, after two wars, and yet the economy is roaring. Unemployment is low, tax revenues are up, the debt ratio is low, and still the political spin machine against him is strong.
Most presidents who go to war become unpopular. If a similar poll had been done on Lincoln, I think you would have found him just as unpopular.
What matters now is how Bush will be remembered by history, long after we are gone and through a cascade events that have yet to happen. - d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"NIXON GOT US OUT OF VIETNAM. Put that in your pipe and smoke it."
Um, technically, Ford got us out of Vietnam.
- rstevens, on 10/12/2007, -24/+7Do the people not like Bush personally or what his policies have done to the nation? Or, do they hate the agendas of his superiors?
- deepdiggdude, on 10/12/2007, -3/+28rstevens:
Yes. - cheez, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12right, his superiors. so now, he's taking orders from graham bauer?
- Skizmo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7"Do the people not like Bush personally or what his policies have done to the nation? Or, do they hate the agendas of his superiors?"
Who cares. . the current administration made the rest of the world hate america . .. that's the big issue - fauxXenophanes, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3Untrue.
If you put fuzzy, warm-hearted, Democratic contender "X" in the white house islam still hates U.S.
Bill Clinton used to star in islamic hate videos. - martalli, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8@fauxxenophanes
People are not concerned about whether Islamic extremists hate us, but whether we have intelligent leadership. We do not currently have any intelligent leadership. - jcm267, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3"Or, do they hate the agendas of his superiors?"
I thought Bush was the boss... - kirtcathey, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3yes... what's to like? But... somebody voted him back into office. Remember, it's his SECOND term.
- fauxXenophanes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1 @ martalli
Get your story straight w/Skizmo. - neuropsychguy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"I thought Bush was the boss..."
No, the American people are really the boss. We can't complain about Pres. Bush without complaining about ourselves. - jcm267, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"No, the American people are really the boss. We can't complain about Pres. Bush without complaining about ourselves."
Then going by what the OP said, the American people hate themselves.
:'( - jcm267, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5"No, the American people are really the boss. We can't complain about Pres. Bush without complaining about ourselves."
Then going by what the OP said, the American people hate themselves.
:'(
- deepdiggdude, on 10/12/2007, -3/+28rstevens:
- Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -16/+63"the older and higher educated you are the more you think Bush stinks"... Yeah, the younger you are the fewer presidents you remember.
Anyway, yeah, I agree - Bush *is* the worst president in modern time, far worse than Nixon. Bush's crimes against the US makes Watergate pale. Let's see: Nixon inherited an impopular war, and had some goons break in to a hotel and plant bugs to eavesdrop on the Democratic party; Bush imprisons critical journalists, eavesdrops on the entire population, institutionalizes torture, intentionally misleads congress to start a war, legalizes imprisoning people without chargre without possibility of appeal and without any limit to the time they're imprisoned, "loses" billions of dollars of war funds, awards no-bid war contracts to companies he or his associates are affiliated with *and* fires auditors and lawyers critical of this *and* fails to investigate claims that those companies are charging for services not rendered.
There's more, like that Bush is now actively supporting the very insurgent organization in Iraq which since a year is holding a US marine captive, but my fingers are getting tired. Yeah, Bush is the worst president in modern time, quite possibly the worst president in all time.
I considered it a travesty of justice and a distasteful squandering of taxpayers money when Clinton was impeached for getting a blowjob; I would consider it a travesty of justice if Bush *wasn't* impeached and prosecuted after he steps down.- jivatmanx, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17See with Nixon, it does'nt feel as if he's Intentionally screwing over the nation and the younger generations, and I can point several things he's done that I agree with, such as improving our relations with China and many other nations.
- thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -17/+20@juckyarddawg
Once AGAIN for you people out there that insist on the statement that "Clinton was impeached for getting a blowjob"....
He was IMPEACHED for PERJURY. And if you think that is wrong, then you also must think that the Judicial Branch is a ***** joke. - jcm267, on 10/12/2007, -17/+3I don't know if I'd call Bush the worst recent President, remember he followed that self serving piece of ***** Clinton... Clinton really may be the worst President we've ever had.
- robdazomba, on 10/12/2007, -9/+26> He was IMPEACHED for PERJURY.
That's true, but you're oversimplifying it. He was being hounded by Republicans about his private life who wanted to use it to smear him and bring down his administration so a lot of us DON'T GIVE ***** THAT HE LIED. Do you get that? No political party has any business dragging a president into frivolous trials and going after his private life for political purposes, or propping up these phony-ass trials to bring him down. And that's exactly what was going on. Many of those involved have now admitted it. Clinton DID lie under oath, but he shouldn't have been there under oath in the first place. Don't tell me that doesn't matter because it does. If a bunch of power-mad politicians are going to go after a president on false or frivolous pretenses, I say he's free to use whatever defense he thinks will work against that. - mrkmrk, on 10/12/2007, -4/+35"He was IMPEACHED for PERJURY. And if you think that is wrong, then you also must think that the Judicial Branch is a ***** joke."
Where the perjury was LYING OVER A BLOWJOB. HE WAS IMPEACHED FOR LYING ABOUT A BLOWJOB. Call it whatever the ***** you want, but that's what it boils down to. Get over it. - robdazomba, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Exactly, mrkmrk! And meanwhile we can't even get our current president to swear an oath before talking about Iraq. Isn't that strange? And yet, Republicans somehow get their panties in a twist because Clinton lied under oath about his PRIVATE LIFE. That's the part they refuse to acknowledge. And it does matter. Those same people who claimed back then that a president and public official doesn't have a private life will now defend Cheney's insistence that the controversial energy meetings of 2001 were private for that very reason.
- Mu99ins, on 10/12/2007, -11/+2LBJ is the most failed President of our times. In regards to GWB,
the failure tag is keyed to the war in Iraq. The press "informs" the public
on that war, and the MSM is in agreement with the Democratic leadership
that the war is lost. Is the war lost? It is if you think it is a small, isolated
war that should've been won in just a few months. But, it's not isolated at all.
Al Qaeda fights there because a democracy in the heart of the Middle East
is the most effective strategy against the setting up a trans-Middle Eastern
caliphate. Iran dips it's wick into Iraq for similar reasons. So, as it turns out,
Iraq is the main battlefield in this complex global war. It's not an isolated little
war, and it's not lost. It will be if we lose the will to fight. If we do that, the
consequences will not be contained in Iraq. - breadfred, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16Since when is getting a blow job make you a worse president then starting a war for economical gain? Sorry but that's how I see this. Money is made from wars, and all of his cronies have made HUGE amounts of your own tax money to build up the Iraqi economy - all it did was bulge the pockets of the likes of Cheney. Don't forget your President has stakes in oil companies. (I'm just a dutch guy living in the UK but that's my point of view)
- robdazomba, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7> In regards to GWB, the failure tag is keyed to the war in Iraq.
And well deserved. It's costing us a crazy amount of money which is affecting the economy, pushing us into deeper debt than this country has ever seen, destroying international ties and a myriad other repercussions. Sure, it's just one issues, but it's a big issue and one that W. bullheadedly refuses to budge on. Name something that has gotten better under W.'s watch.
Economy? Nope.
Jobs? Nope.
Debt/Deficit spending? Nope.
Name something. - jcm267, on 10/12/2007, -13/+8"Clinton DID lie under oath, but he shouldn't have been there under oath in the first place. Don't tell me that doesn't matter because it does. If a bunch of power-mad politicians are going to go after a president on false or frivolous pretenses, I say he's free to use whatever defense he thinks will work against that."
That's a weak position to take, and it's the one that every god damn left wing partisan hack takes. We can argue all day whether or not he should've been on trial, the fact is he lied under oath. There is no cheapening the crime. The law doesn't say that it's okay to lie under oath if it's over something frivilous. As a lawyer and President of the United States he should've had the good sense to fess up.
The guy's a liar, and a very good one at that. He thought he could get away with it like he's gotten away with everything. He's had people killed, he's raped women, he routinely came onto women in the oval office, he failed to act on the Islamic threat in the 8 years of his Presidency following the 1993 WTC attack, his attorney general overreached her bounds time and time again. He sold nuclear secrets to China, he sold the Linconl bedroom for campaign contributions. His pardons were the worst in recent history.
Face it, he's a scumbag and a failed President. - breadfred, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2Clinton might have been a 'good liar' but he had something more important to protect. Would YOU like to stand up to your wife, Hillary, and say 'I've had a blowjob from a member of staff'? C'mon, he was lying to his wife - it just happened to be in front of the jury.
- karmakanic, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2@thcobbs
Clinton did a stupid thing by lying and equivocating, and it obviously qualifies as perjury, but it's one of those "there but by the grace of God go I" things. Who among us hasn't at least pondered telling full- or half-truths when confronted with our own idiocy? The venue of the lie obviously makes a difference - lying to a Grand Jury is obviously worse than lying to your wife - but it's important to consider the magnitude of the lie when pondering the punishment.
Personally, I probably would have made the same initial mistake - lying to my wife and denying it in the press - but I probably would have fess'd up well before it reached the level of a congressional investigation. Hindsight is 20-20, of course, but it does seem like a heartfelt confession of stupid decision-making would have allowed us to avoid the impeachment proceedings.
Again, it is important to keep the magnitude of the lie in perspective. Look at it this way:
- Bush is attempting to undermine the Constitution by manipulating the public through fear and intimidation
- Clinton broke the law by lying about whether or not he "had sex" with an intern
- Reagan broke the law by waging a war in Central America without the approval of Congress
- Nixon subverted the Constitution by cheating on an election
(props to Doonesbury, back in '99 or so)
Which of these is worse? Which of these places our nation and our Constitution at the greatest risk? In my opinion, ranking them on a scale of 1 to 10:
- Bush: 8 (a fool surrounded by very smart people with a dangerous agenda - hopefully the mistakes are correctable)
- Nixon: 6 (dumb, dumb, dumb - He was probably going to win anyway!!!)
- Reagan: 5 (the Constitution is pretty clear about who gets to wage war)
- Clinton: 2 (personal error, dumb, so accept the public flogging and get on with life) - bobbyi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14"Bush's crimes against the US makes Watergate pale."
FWIW, so does Iran-Contra. - jcm267, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8Breadfred:
People who worked in the Clinton White House have said that Bill's filanderings were well known, even by Hillary, and that for the sake of their political careers she didn't say or do anything about it. It's been said that their marriage is loveless and more a marriage of mutual cooperation for the benefit of each other's careers. I think that these people are evil, and care about power and their legacy more than they care about America. - robdazomba, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8> People who worked in the Clinton White House have said [...] It's been said that their marriage
Just wanted to clarify that you made outrageous accusations against people without citing a single source.
> I think that these people are evil
Amazing. You make the leap from nonexistent sources claiming very unlikely things to the conclusion that the Clintons are "evil." Seriously, take a long look at your own biases. It will do you some good. - breadfred, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@ jcm265
Thank you for that comment, I wasn't aware of that. However, there would still be the point of publicly humiliating your wife - that may sound silly, but that's how I would feel if I would EVER cheat on my wife (which I have never done). I would not want to put her through that ***** and would want to try anything to prevent that. But your point has been taken! - dvfreelancer, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4"then you also must think that the Judicial Branch is a ***** joke."
Well, yeah, it kind of is. Though not quite as funny as the "Justice Department" with Roberto in charge.
If the Republicans don't vote to impeach Cheney then they are the corrupt, incompetent stooges most of us already believe them to be. I could give you a pass on Bush, because, yes, he really is that stupid. But not Cheney. The war profiteering alone should be an impeachable offense. - jcm267, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5"Just wanted to clarify that you made outrageous accusations against people without citing a single source.
Amazing. You make the leap from nonexistent sources claiming very unlikely things to the conclusion that the Clintons are "evil." Seriously, take a long look at your own biases. It will do you some good."
Funny. Do you go around to all the nitwits who label Bush as "evil" and tell them to take a look at their own biases?
The fact that you haven't heard of my "outrageous accusation" just goes to show how much you pay attention. I was hearing about Billy's cheating ways long before the Monica thing, and I was still a kid. I'm only 23 now. And since when did any comments on digg have to be cited? I guess only if you're not left of center and you do not believe in manbearpig do you have to back up anything you say with actual sources. Sorry, I'll note that so I don't make this mistake again.
The following book was written by the person who carried the nuclear football in the white house for (I think) 2 years. He was around the sexual deviant and his bitch wife all the time, and at times was the President's only contact with the outside world. Get off your horse you smug *****. Maybe not everything a Clinton hater says is made up.
http://www.amazon.com/Dereliction-Duty-Eyewitness-Compromised-Americas/dp/0895260603/sr=1-2/qid=1172353030/ref=pd_bbs_2/002-3190670-0569647?ie=UTF8&s=books - Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Regarding the Big Blowjob Perjury: do you remember why Clinton was questioned to begin with?
The GOP-controlled house had appointed a special, GOP-loyal, prosecutor to investigate charges of corruption, the so-called Whitewater scandal. When the Whitewater scandal turned out to not be a scandal, the special prosecutor, instead of stepping down, used the special powers invested in him to keep digging for dirt on the Clintons. After a while he got wind of that Clinton had affairs, and started subpoenaing people left and right - whether it was true or not, it would tarnish the Clinton image - and the rest is history. The "whitewater/lewinski" investigation cost the taxpayers $80M - and it *was* a GOP hatchet job on the president.
Tell me, do you think a special prosecutor, with free reins to go on fishing expeditions and to question or subpoena anyone, including the president, would find dirt on Bush? Do you perhaps think he would find worse dirt than an extramarital affair?
I know I do. - NoStoppingUs, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1haha..you people are pathetic. if bush is such a criminal, why isnt the democrat controlled congress doing something about it?
- fozzmoo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2The whole story reeks of politicizing. Say what you want about Bush's performance as president, but to consider Zogby as an unbiased organization that doesn't poll to get the result they want to see? That's just nuts.
Nixon wasn't a bad president. His party got him caught up in some bad stuff, but on the whole, he did some really great stuff.
Now, Bush... it seems people to say he's a bad president because (a) he went into Iraq and then found no obvious smoking gun of WMD, (b) He supported the institution of laws like the Patriot Act which allegedly curtail our liberties, and (c) he's republican.
What about the economy? Does anyone remember how things were tanking, big time, before 9/11 and then 9/11 just made it worse. There was some legitimate fear of economic collapse in this country when 9/11 happened. It's not all Bush's credit, but he was partly responsible for bringing about the greatest era of economic prosperity this country has ever seen.
Has the U.S. seen an attack on our soil of the magnitude of 9/11 since 2001? No. Has the U.S. seen an attack on our soil of the magnitude HALF of what happened on 9/11 since 2001? No. Really, things have been pretty peachy since Bush spearheaded reforms to the intelligence community and made homeland defense a priority.
I'm not saying the guy is perfect. I really hate the way he's NOT doing anything significant about the problem with illegal immigration.
So, all this talk about Bush being impeached and prosecuted... What the hell for? What has he done that is an impeachable offense? Last time I checked, pissing off frustrated liberals was not an impeachable. - kroenecker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I can tell that nobody here has actually read about whether or not Clinton perjured himself. According to the definition of "sexual relations" as agreed upon by the court, he DIDN'T lie.
- SupaFupa, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11Damn, from 1841 through 1877, there are only two presidents, Polk and Lincoln that are NOT on this list. These two presidents were only in office for a total of 9 years out of 36!
Although president's actions and decisions definitely go towards defining their presidencies, no one has complete control of the events that precede them, or even happen when they are in office. Its been said that FDR would have been just as unsuccessful as Hoover in preventing or solving the Great Depression, and would have only served one term. World War II and the US economy are intertwined regardless of FDR. The US could not have won the war without the entire country contributing to the war effort, which boosted the economy, and ended the Depression.
Abraham Lincoln could have easily been as forgettable as most of the other presidents of the 1800s without the Civil War, or could have been remembered as the president who lost the Civil War if several singular events happened differently. Had the battle of Antietam not been a draw, which itself could have been easily won by either side if not for being unaware of the opportunities, and the South had won the battle, Britain would have joined the war, on the side of the South, because of Cotton, which was the modern day equivalent of Oil.
And sadly, if history is any indication, George Bush stands a decent chance of being remembered quite fondly. With the exception of Nixon, who had almost complete control over his legacy, every president on this list is a peacetime president. Washington, Lincoln and FDR, consistently ranked the top 3 presidents, along with Truman, Wilson, and Madison, are all war time presidents.
All this being said, George W. Bush has inherited one event, 9/11. And actually, in terms of political capital, its about the best event a president could ask for. The chance to heal a nation, and bring justice to the attackers, and prevent future attacks. Bush has claimed to be pursuing all three of these goals, but is simply pouring salt in wounds. But history seldom remembers the means, only the ends. If somehow Osama Bin Laden is captured, (I cant think of what could possibly punctuate the Iraq/Iran situation in two years.) History will most likely turn a blind eye to how it happened. The fact that presidents had slaves is moot today, even though it would be called an atrocity today. FDR imprisoned hundreds of thousands of Japanese Americans after Pearl Harbor. Woodrow Wilson signed the Sedition and Espionage Act of 1918, which made it a crime to voice dissent with the government. In 100 years, the suspension of Habeas Corpus, warrantless wiretapping, and everything else that violates the Constitution will probably be chalked up to "different times."- BlazeQ, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Are people digging you down because your post is long, or because you are presenting a rational point?
- cr4ft, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2That's what happens when nepotism exists in congress
- tsax28, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Are these the same voters that agreed with removing Saddam is a good ideal in 2003? I believe so.
- skytimelapse, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Probably because they TRUSTED the president about what he and his cabal was spewing about WMDs. They feel lied to and so do I.
- xcoastie, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Yeah, because NO dems voted for the war or believed there were WMD. It was just Bush all by himself.
- jcm267, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3Lincoln and Truman were unpopular, too...
- tinker123, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Lincoln and Truman also accomplished something.
All Bush has done is give a tax cut and depose Sadam Hussein, both of these "accomplishments" are really a prelude to two different large messes he will be leaving behind for the country to clean up when he leaves office and aren't really accomplishments at all.
History looks back at Lincoln and Truman well because those men left accomplishments behind. That isn't something Bush will be doing.
- tinker123, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Lincoln and Truman also accomplished something.
- tinker123, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10How ***** stupid are the people in that 30.2% if they still haven't seen how much of a batch of bad news Bush is for the country yet and they still support him?
- ElCazador, on 10/12/2007, -7/+9@tinker123:
I agree. HOW ***** stupid are the people in that 30.2% (that still support GWB), even when presented with mountains of evidence to the contrary???
THAT ***** stupid. Folks, that's a whole lotta stupid.
That's many a child that SHOULD'VE been left behind (or at least been required to repeat a year or more).
I wonder, do they have Fox news piped down into the sand in which they've buried their heads? - neuropsychguy, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4I still support Pres. Bush so I guess I'm REALLY stupid. Just because you disagree with someone's view doesn't make that person stupid. Do I agree with everything Pres. Bush does? No, but he definitely a better president than LBJ and Pres. Carter.
*Stupid ole' me needs to get back to my PhD.
- ElCazador, on 10/12/2007, -7/+9@tinker123:
- robdazomba, on 10/12/2007, -8/+25"Reagan: 34.4 percent great, 3.7 percent failure."
I'm still trying to figure out why people think so highly of Reagan. On every quantifiable issue (economy, debt, jobs, crime, etc.) everything got markedly worse under his administration, especially the deficit spending. He devastated the country financially (although we didn't feel it at first because he was borrowing like crazy and burying us in debt.) His administration was riddled with serious corruption almost on the par with George W. Bush, but the press was too in love with him to go after it. He went after third-world countries militarily under false pretenses just like W. He was shockingly ignorant about domestic issues. On top of that, the rest of the world and historical experts strongly disagree with the American right-wing propaganda that Reagan ended the cold war and brought down the Berlin Wall by his smart international maneuvering and foreign policy.
But you know, we've been Hollywood-ized (ironically by a political party that aims that accusation at everyone but themselves) and anyone who can get up there and speak well and give off a good stage presence and look great on TV is by default a "great" president. I guess. I think when you look at Reagan with an unbiased eye, you'll see that he was, at best, a mediocre president.
And yes, right-wingers who can't handle dissenting views... click that little red icon over there and carry on like nothing happened. That's easier than trying to make your case that Reagan was anything but mediocre. :^/- jcm267, on 10/12/2007, -8/+7Ummm ... the economy got worse under Reagan? You're kidding right?
Debt, fine that went up, but it's still well below post WW2 levels NOW and most would say that the 20 years or so following WW2 (when we had the highest debt) was one of the greatest periods of growth this country has ever seen. Hell, we're enjoying the best economy and quality of life this country has ever seen now. I believe we gained a lot of jobs during those years, I'd like to see where you get your ideas from. The tech sector was booming was it not? I assume you were referring to the loss of manufacturing jobs, but I like to think of manufacturing jobs in the same light as farming jobs were around the turn of the 20th century. Imagine if we decided to not industrialize as much as we did because we didn't wanna lose all of our farming jobs.
Yeah his drug position was stupid, but most of the increase in crime was due to the crack epidemic that would have come along no matter which side was still supporting the drug war. The only difference was the left at the time wanted pot legal, which would've have made a difference with cocaine related violence.
Reagan is thought of as great because of the way he dealt with the Soviet Union.
A lot of the same ***** being said about W was said about Reagan. Neither President is by any means my "ideal" guy, but given what the opposition has put in place (Carter, Clinton) I'll stick with those not so lovable Neocons. If it weren't for Carter/Clinton there's a good chance we wouldn't have to be dealing with the Islamic problem like we are now. - neuropsychguy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3The thing is Regan's economic policies look really bad in the short term (like Pres. Bush's) but they were/are wonderful in the long term (think of the nice economy during the 90s - a lot of it [not all] can be traced back to Reganomics). The problem is we are a microwave, instant gratification culture and often don't look beyond tomorrow.
- nick111, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Reagan has had a white-wash done on him.
Towards the end he was very unpopular - ratings in the mid 30s etc.... there's also been this myth created that he "beat" the Soviet Union. This isn't actually true. The Soviet Union collapsed entirely of its own accord - if anything, Reagan's inflexible militaristic stance actually prolonged the cold war.
Iran Contra anyone?
- jcm267, on 10/12/2007, -8/+7Ummm ... the economy got worse under Reagan? You're kidding right?
- Mongeaux, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4You need to look at all the polls, not just the one that reflects your opinion.
RealClearPolitics Poll Averages as of Saturday, February 24, 2007
Bush Approval Rating
Rasmussen (02/18 - 02/20) 39%
Quinnipiac (02/13 - 02/19 34%
WNBC/Marist (02/12 - 02/15) 35%
FOX News (02/13 - 02/14) 35%
USA Today/Gallup (02/09 - 02/11) 37%
CBS News (02/08 - 02/11) 32%
Pew Research (02/07 - 02/11 33%
AP-Ipsos (02/05 - 02/07) 32%
Gallup (02/01 - 02/04) 32%
FOX News (01/30 - 01/31) 38%- ILikePants, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3While I agree that Bush was way worse than Nixon, I think it's important to keep in mind that Zogby is a joke, and his methods are *****. On his website, he says: "Zogby International’s trained pollsters will provide unbiased results for your survey." There's NO POSSIBLE WAY you could ever make that assertion. It's like someone who's selling you a used car saying there are NO POSSIBLE problems with the car. What a load of crap.
- Elys539, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Yes, those are different numbers, but they are all below 40%. Those are horrible approval ratings.
- goldfenix, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7I'm digging this up mostly as retribution against all the LittleGreenFootball spam that has been hitting digg the last few days.
- trenchcoat, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5But if it was from thinkprogress you'd call it hard hitting joirnalism.
- Krymore, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Thinkprogress isn't a hate cult. Thinkprogress also doesn't tell it's users to make multiple Digg accounts and spam each other's stories to the front page to boost site traffic.
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"I'm digging this up mostly as retribution against all the LittleGreenFootball spam that has been hitting digg the last few days."
Yes, only left wing propaganda allowed is allowed on Digg.
- tinker123, on 10/12/2007, -7/+130.2% They can't all be macintosh atheist using liberals as some of the right wing nuts on digg.com claim.
Heh, I am an atheist liberal Ubuntu user, takes all kind. - cr4ft, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4mongeaux: Those are still very bad numbers. Actually, one of the highest poll numbers in that list belongs to Fox News.
How convenient- sfpfc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5that was the earliest poll though, the second poll (which is closer to the other polls of that date) fox news is not much different and is less than a percentage point away from the average
- amightywind, on 10/12/2007, -13/+4"Zogby tells us..."
Zogby is a liberal fantasy whose purpose is to keep the base motivated. Historically Zogby and CBS are the least reliable polls to be found. The fact that President Bush owns the scalps of Gore and Kerry will attest to that.- ILikePants, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1No, just a bad pollster. Comparing zogby to CBS is apples and oranges.. CBS is pretty reputable, Zogby is not.
- subgeniusd, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3Bush did not win either election unless you consider theft a type of "winning".
- buddy06, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8On the immigration issue Bush goes down as the worst... this from a Latino Conservative, Hare Krsna, how's that for diversity.
- oneonline, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2You believe a Zogby poll about Bush? My God you people are stupid!
- tenrec, on 10/12/2007, -11/+4Why is Bush so hated? After 9/11 Bush's approval rating went up to 90%. The Dems realized that they would be devastated in future elections unless his approval rating was slashed. The plan that they developed was very simple:
o Never give him or his administration credit for any accomplishment
o Blame him for everything that goes wrong, even when he is not responsible
The plan worked to slash his approval rating but they were not able to beat him in 2004. That was Kerry's fault. Sticking to their plan they won the House and Senate and will keep at it until after the 2008 election.- jcm267, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3The Democrats and the media have been trying to discredit this President since not long after 9/11.
Now the majority opinion is we never should've gone into this war, that they never had WMDs. I think the WMDs are probably in Syria, and I think we should quit fighting a PC war and start fighting to win.
I've long been against Bush, but for far different reasons than the left for the most part. I can't even agree with most of them on Katrina; I think the Bush Administration, Blanco, and Nagin were all terrible. People seem to forget the bumbling idiot mayor and the crying do nothing Governor when talking about what went wrong... - snapuswipe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Bush's approval rating did top off around 90%, but that was /because of/ the terrorist attacks on 9/11, and the ratings have continuously fallen from there, with the two exceptions being the War in Iraq and the capture of Saddam.
If you looked at approval ratings before that occurred, he had a steady rating around 50%, from the previous elections, which ended up being so close.
- jcm267, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3The Democrats and the media have been trying to discredit this President since not long after 9/11.
- sfpfc, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3zogby predicted 311 kerry electoral votes 213 bush electoral votes and 14 too close to call
reality bush 286 kerry 252- Skizmo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1reality ??? o. . sorry. . .you include fraud. .. I don't
- VhaidraU, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0This poll also shows us that the most recent presidents are almost always the worst failures.
Also interesting that finds these presidents neither great nor a failure. - bobnoxious, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5"Facts are silly things." Ronald Reagan
- lofiboy, on 10/12/2007, -14/+4What the hell?
Where is JIMMY CARTER in this argument? He is the biggest presidential failure in the past 231 years.- BottledSunshine, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0Yeah, remember when Jimmy was attacked by the “killer” rabbit? http://www.narsil.org/politics/carter/killer_rabbit.html
- drizek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5He was on the list, and reality does not agree with you.
Thank you for playing.
- Pookatooka, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0well of course Bush is worse than Nixon...Nixon was the best =)
- rockrapdude, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3well.a paradox for you people: everybody who is DIGGin' bush isn't DIGG'in bush.kekekekekekek
- Mongeaux, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4The Bush numbers are low but not low by Nixonian standards, or even (for that matter) Jimmy Carter. One must always take poll results with a big grain of salt: if there is truth to be had, it can be discovered in aggregate, not by cherrypicking. Those who do so temp disappointment of the November 2004 kind.
It is also useful to note where the momentum is - Bush is very slowly edging up. Does that mean anything? Not right now, but keep watching.
Another thought: immediately after Reagan left office the media reported a poll among Historians who ranked him as the worst president in American History. Almost two decades later those numbers have changed dramatically have they not? - GuyHersh, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2ignore this digg it down..
- GuyHersh, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2what is wrong with my browser, digg down again..
- breadfred, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3too much beer in the browser?
- pabster, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3Zogby is not a Presidential Historian.
History will vindicate George W. Bush.- drizek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3but my tommy gun wont.
/Home Alone reference, no i dont want to assassinate the president. Hey FBI *****, what are you doing reading digg anyway? Get back to work and stop wasting my tax dollars. - omgTHEPATRIOTS, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9correction: history will eviscerate George W. Bush.
- drizek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3but my tommy gun wont.
- brickne3, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@ElCazador:
"I'm sorry, did I miss something? When exactly did Hitler attack his own country?
I'm not defending Hitler (sorry, Trolls!), just questioning one of the many 'facts' you claim..."
Ever hear of the Reichstag fire, just for a quick 'n easy example? No? Well maybe you don't know enough about WW2 to frakking comment on it! Christ. You know, if you don't know something, you can always wikipedia it instead of offending the people who DO know about it with your astounding ignorance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler - aratika, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3Poor Digg Hippies. Nothing better to do on a Saturday.
- ryanissuper, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Are you writing this from the "Cool guys laptop and hot chicks club?"
- Barlo_Mung, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Never thought I'd miss Nixon.
- Brain1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0I have frequently thought to myself...I wish Nixon, and Agnew were alive to see the Flying Outrage of a White House that we have today!! They would most certainly have Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield ,Rice,and Ashcroft Removed immediately if they could. They would most certainly do something!!
- m3galon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0http://www.antsinyourmouth.com/comic.php?id=73
karl rove has his work cut out for him! - fudlilman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3president bush can suck my balls
how the fuq when soldiers are going to finish their term in the army they deploy them a month before they were suppose to leave under the so called ***** "stop loss policy" - differentangel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2People watch and read more news today than in FDR days. No matter how bias
- DoTheFandango, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Nixon ended the draft.
Bush..?
Exactly. - chase11209, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3funny thing is, is that only history will show. he might go down as the worst president in history, but 25yrs from now he may be looked at as the hero of his time. it happened in many cases.
Roman
www.letsgobble.com - m3galon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I can't imagine people some day deciding that bush was great. What has he done that will be remembered favorably by history? He hasn't even caught bin ladin
- analyze, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Roosevelt in 1941 was labeled a "Benedict Arnold", one "stirring up fear and hatred," hassled by anti-war groups like "Citizens Keep America Out of War Committee," referred to as "senile" and "sterile," and burned in effigy to name a few. Do you think FDR lacks greatness. Only history will tell. Typically, war presidents rank pretty well over time.
Source: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,789931,00.html
- analyze, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Roosevelt in 1941 was labeled a "Benedict Arnold", one "stirring up fear and hatred," hassled by anti-war groups like "Citizens Keep America Out of War Committee," referred to as "senile" and "sterile," and burned in effigy to name a few. Do you think FDR lacks greatness. Only history will tell. Typically, war presidents rank pretty well over time.
- Darel99, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Having voted for president Bush I can state with firm conviction we must impeach this tyrant. Yes, he has a proven track record to represent his poor approval.
Allow me to highlight a few reasons:
1) He stated the leader of Al-Queda was responsible for 911. Yet, if you visit the FBI website and click on Bin Laden you will note no where on the FBI most wanted profile does it even mention he is responsible for 911. Why? If you don't trust my statement then take the time to visit the FBI site yourself.
2) Bush stated on national TV that Sadam Hussein was not responsible for 911. Yet he told the nation he was part of the 911 issue.
So if Bin Ladin wasn't responsible and Saddam wasn't responsive then why did we invade both countries? By our presidents personal omission he lied!
3) Bush went before congress to share with the world his case against Iraq and offered details of Iraq's threat. Yet, no WMD's were ever found..... He lied! Its a crime to lie to congress.
4) The value of our dollar has plummeted and he has taken no real action to focus on fixing this drastic issue.
5) He states he is tough on Terror yet he wants open borders? You can't have both. By his own action by not supporting the border agents who are currently in prison he represents ideals of failed protection. To add he is OK with allowing an Islamic ran company to protect our ports? Give me a break!
6) He has covertly created a Union between USA, Canada and Mexico many refer to this as the North American Union it is directed by the Executive branch. You may visit Judicial Watch to see the freedom of information act documents which states they want to integrate this plan by "stealth means." This is an act of treason.
7) IF your currently receiving social security benefits then your going to love this one. Bush has an agreement to allow Mexicans to receive our benefits this is called the 'Totalazation Agreement." Our own benefit system is broken yet he wants to extend this to another nation.... It should be easy to connect this with the North American Union.
8) Bush as passed more police state laws then any other president. We must repeal each outlandish law.
We must seek to remove Bush from office. It will send a strong message to other neo-cons like minded individuals who think building an Empire is the best way to promote our nation.
The solution to our nation should be to chose the best policies which promote limited government and a stronger currency we can do this by supporting individuals like presidential hopeful Dr. Ron Paul.- Todalion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1darel,,,,,please read my comment a little farther down. You speak no truths. I bet you smell like *****.
- analyze, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2I guess it is time to bring out the Bush bashing blood-letting article for the liberal and Democratic Diggers to to drink their fill of hate-inspiring, blood-seeking rhetoric.
"Hatred is self-punishment. Hatred it the coward's revenge for being intimidated."
--Hosea Ballou - Mu99ins, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0LBJ is the most failed President of our times. In regards to GWB,
the failure tag is keyed to the war in Iraq. The press "informs" the public
on that war, and the MSM is in agreement with the Democratic leadership
that the war is lost. Is the war lost? It is if you think it is a small, isolated
war that should've been won in just a few months. But, it's not isolated at all.
Al Qaeda fights there because a democracy in the heart of the Middle East
is the most effective strategy against the setting up a trans-Middle Eastern
caliphate. Iran dips it's wick into Iraq for similar reasons. So, as it turns out,
Iraq is the main battlefield in this complex global war. It's not an isolated little
war, and it's not lost. It will be if we lose the will to fight. If we do that, the
consequences will not be contained in Iraq. - heynow21, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0I don't think its a coincidence that he's almost certainly the dumbest president ever too. Has there ever been another president so obviously weak minded? (Reagan at least started out intelligent).
- waterdrop, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1My mother always speaks good about Richard Nixon. She says his foreign policies where very good, and she believes that he ended the cold war, or at least helped too. She tells me that Nixon was a very good president in her opinion. Some people really liked Nixon, no-one really likes Bush.
- Skid32, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"The more recent an injury, the sharper it is remembered."
- JusticeRebel, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Let’s see…
Clinton raised taxes; Bush cut taxes.
Bush removed two tyrants from power; Clinton removed his pants for Monica.
Clinton was impeached; Bush restored integrity to the Oval Office.
Clinton had 8 years in office and he did absolutely nothing, therefore he’s the real FAILURE!- Todalion, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Justice, I fully agree. Im sure you are going to get dugg down, but, I shall digg you up. Why is it that no one can understand this? Come on you filthy libs....give it to me, and show me and everyone else here your bitch ass reply. Its so easy to say you dont like Bush, because thats what the media has programmed in your little molded minds. Think for yourselves one time, stay off the caffeine, quit eating all the danishes at Starbucks, and realize that you are all just followers to whatever is popular. Thats right, go turn on your Apple ibooks, go listen to your soft guitarist sing a song about war, order up a mocha latte, and get ready to eat up all your f***ing bullsh*t words. Its going to be a big plate of hypocrisy, hope you are ready. I sure am.
- rare80s, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2When has integrity included lying to the people, over and over and over ... and over, like the Bush Administration has continuously done.
Leaking classified information is apparently okay and given the thumbs-up by conservatives as long as it benefits them.
The Bush Administration is just an uninspiring disaster.
I'm glad most people recognize that.
- protogenxl, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2If Nixon had been completely honest about Watergate and not self-destructed he could have been one of the greats. As for Bush we will not know the full extent of the damage he has caused to our nation until he is long gone. History is the true judge of a man.
- FCDrifter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1See that is why you need to educate yourself or you will be a moron and think Bush is doing a great job as an US President. Why wait until your old to figure that out? By the time you are 50-60 years of age there will be no United States, the country will be the North American Union (US + Canada + Mexico).
- rare80s, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0HaHaHa, Bush sucks so bad. That's what the Bush Administration gets for being in a bubble full of Yes Men.
I can't stand conservatives, in general.- cranium, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Ah, you must belong to the party of "tolerance", obviously.
- rthakidn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Alright everyone, I won't go right out there and say GW is the worst prez ever, but lets face it, he had both houses of congress and should have been able to whip ass all over the country and globe. But his daddy's "kinder, getler nation" crap must have gotten stuck in his head. This whole thing could have been over long ago, but GW got stuck in the politics of everything. Carter on the other hand by far is the worst prez ever and the sad thing is, that guy just won't go away.
- mscbuck, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Well, as a libertarian, I'm voting FDR as worst President ever. GW has not performed up to par, but at least he has not created the monster that is the federal bureaucracy like FDR did.Not only did he make the depression worse, but as the creator of social security, not to mention taking us off a gold standard, he was a terrible terrible president.
- cranium, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Economically, FDR was a disaster for the country. We're still paying for his policies, there's no end in sight.
On the other hand, FDR was one of the leaders who helped save the world from Hitler. If he'd have done something about Stalin also the world would be a much better place.
- cranium, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Economically, FDR was a disaster for the country. We're still paying for his policies, there's no end in sight.
- nihilite, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I am Jack's complete lack of suprise.
He has destroyed america. Don't fool yourself into thinking we can ever fully recover from The Idiot's collosal blunders. -
Show 51 - 57 of 57 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by