Top 10 Presidential blunders -- and amazingly, Bush isn't on the list!

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Thomas Veil, Feb 19, 2006.

  1. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #1
    Remarkably, neither Bush's ignoring the pre-9/11 warnings nor his misadventures in Iraq made this list of top 10 Presidential blunders:

    Link

    Now excuse me, but Bush's screwups have been so egregious that, to me, he knocks Clinton right off the #10 spot on that list.

    Personally, I'd put Bush at #2 (possibly even #1), and kick everybody else down one notch.

    How about you? Would you put Bush on this list? And if so, where?
     
  2. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #2
    Most likely trying to "spin " attention away from the many many follys of Bush & the draft dodgers. Taking the U.S.to war over missing WMDs has to be one of historys biggest mistakes. Where are those WMDs Mr President you wouldnt stop talking about?:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Thousands dead, many more missing limbs, billions wasted. The money Bush used building bombs could have shored up Social Security for another 50 years. Down the drain.
     
  3. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #3
    "Most likely trying to "spin " attention away from the many many follys of Bush & the draft dodgers."

    Huh? The McConnell Center of the University of Louisville is a hotbed of pro-Bushies? Pardon me, but I'd be a bit dubious of that claim.

    The historians who made the list at least have the benefit of some history on their side. Reagan's mistakes are 20 years back, and the Clinton mistakes are obvious.

    Sure, some years down the road Bush II may make make the list and even have a high position. But it will take some time for it to be reasonably factual.

    That any of us here agree or disagree with Bush's actions to date is irrelevant to the views from the future. While I don't think Bush is a Ruy Lopez in this game of international chess, I do think we're in the opening stages and years to decades away from any endgame.

    'Rat
     
  4. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #4
    Even if Lewinsky is the most infamous doing of Clinton... and even though I really liked him as president, I wouldn't even put it as *his* most egregious action. I guess the long term consequences were minor, but remember the wag the dog business with bombing those chemical plants in the Sudan?

    And somehow, it's shocking that a failure to avert Operation Desert Shield and the long and unfortunate string of consequences that have followed seems like it belongs on the list. And I think there have been many other balls dropped.

    It seems to me that the Clinton thing was put on the list, more than anything else, so that the list would have a relatively non-controversial (since even most liberals think he handled it poorly) but recent item, to help make the list appealing to people who aren't historians, and are not intimately familiar with the actions of Jefferson or Johnson. :)
     
  5. PlaceofDis macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    #5
    bush probably isn't on the list only because hes still in term and might screw up more.
     
  6. zap2 macrumors 604

    zap2

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Location:
    Washington D.C
    #6
    what CLinton did might not haev been "right" but it did not cost anyone there lifes, or wate billions of our tax dollars. How can you tell Bush should not be on that list!
     
  7. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #7
    As much as I personally think Bush has got to be one of the worst presidents ever, I completely agree with 'rat. Not enough perspective on the events to see if they make the list yet or not. It's like making a list of the greatest novels of the 20th century in 1999, there really shouldn't be any books from the 1990s on the list because they've really yet to prove themselves.
     
  8. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #8
    I think you're accepting the Republican spin on this event as fact. You should read Richard Clarke's book -- he discusses in detail the Sudan bombing as well as of the other attacks the Clinton administration made on suspected terrorist assets. They'd have happened, Monica or no Monica.

    As for the history of presidential screw-ups, I think it's too soon for history to judge the Bush legacy, or at least to place it in historical perspective with the decisions of 19th century presidents, the consequences of which are fully known. Historians like to see events play out before they draw conclusions about their long-term effects. Bush may be vindicated by history. I personally doubt it, but at this point, who really knows?
     
  9. CanadaRAM macrumors G5

    CanadaRAM

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2004
    Location:
    On the Left Coast - Victoria BC Canada
    #9
    Hmmm... Perhaps Bush hasn't done anything sufficiently presidential to qualify as a President, yet.

    Or maybe, the blunder was entirely the electorate's...
     
  10. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #10
    Apparently not in the case of Clinton. ;) But I'll take to heed your comment about Sudan. I wasn't convinced it was truly a Wag-the-Dog phenomenon, but I also didn't think the actions had a great deal of justification.

    Mmmm, I didn't necessarily think GWB should be on the list. I was implicating the *other* Bush for starting this whole mess more than 15 years ago. :rolleyes: It seems like, at this point, there is sufficient hindsight to call *that* a bad idea. :eek: ;) :(
     
  11. Thomas Veil thread starter macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #11
    I really don't know how much you need the passage of time, or for Bush to complete his term, to put Bush's own blunders up there. I think you could safely say that if Roosevelt had received memos about threatened attacks on the US one month before Pearl Harbor, and Roosevelt refused to read them because he was on vacation, that he'd be on the list...certainly ahead of Clinton getting a blow job. Same for Bush taking the country to war on a false premise. I think either of those obviously trumps Clinton's b.j. in terms of their lasting effect on the country. But I guess that's me.
     
  12. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #12
    Not necessarily. I don't think Monicagate belongs on the list either. It wasn't clear to me that it actually made the list.

    My point is, if an historical judgment is what you are after (instead of a parlor game, which is what this list might be), then the long-term consequences of the presidential actions have to be considered, and generally they aren't fully understood for decades.
     
  13. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #13
    ha, bloody ha.

    Surprised not to see Bush Sr's vomiting incident in Japan...

    As to the inclusion of Clinton's sexcapades, sadly I think it does qualify for the list as such a big deal was made about it that it affected a great deal in the latter half of his term and in the resultant elections.

    Interesting that there was no Carter on that list.
     
  14. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #14
    Gotta agree with 'Rat here. This is historical, not current events. And though I think history will show just how bad Bush's decision have been, even if things eventually turn out ok in the ME, these are historians we're talking about. And the Clinton thing was a big deal because it was a stupid and irresponsible thing to do, and even worse to lie about it. Clinton's enemies finally had fodder to try to bring him down. Just enough people cared about it to help the republicans gain even more control. The Nixon thing was bad, but also made worse by the coverup. I would think that Bush Sr.'s mistakes would have made the list, but again, the ramifications aren't immediately clear yet. For now, it actually looks like it was a good idea for him to not finish what he started.

    Not that Iraq was necessarily better off with Saddam, but we've certainly made an even worse mess of it.
     
  15. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #15
    One example about why I tend to take a "wait and see" position about international events or policy decisions:

    Bush I stopped Desert Storm so that Saddam would still have SOME military. It was seen as desirable that Saddam remain as a balance of power against Iranian expansion around souther Iraq and into Kuwait, among other things. I think Bush I's folks were surprised by Saddam's efforts and actions on the ground against the Kurds in the north and against the rebels in the south; he was unexpectedly successful.

    To me, this was understandable, although I was very dubious. I still am, although the saber-rattling by the Iranians illustrates that the concept wasn't unreasonable.

    It seems to me that lot of foreign policy on the part of any of the Great Powers is designed to create balances of powers in regions, based in part on competing interests. I've found that Kipling's naming it "The Great Game" is apt; it's international chess.

    'Rat
     

Share This Page