ANSWERS: 64
  • No, just the worst one you know about! The situation after 9/11 is not one ANY president would have wanted to face. And if you think GWB is bad, just wait for the next one. He may be the one who has the time in office to pull us out of Iraq, but there are many other challenges which will be just as perplexing and beyond popular control and consensus.
  • Definitly not.....the fact that he ousted a dictator and freed an oppressed country must have slipped your mind. No doubt there have been problems with the Iraq war, but thinking Bush is the worst president ever is a statement of ignorance.
  • Warren G. Harding is the worst president of all time. First off, history reflects him as weak and ineffectual. During his presidency the country was in a depression, there were numerous scandals, the Teapot Dome affair ,corruption in the Veterans Bureau and the Justice Department, and the posthumous revelation of an extramarital affair, just to name a few. He ultimatley did nothing for the country, that is why Warren G. Harding is the worst president to serve the United States.
  • at times i think he is but then i ask myself if i was president how would i do? and would people say that i was the worse president ever?
  • Yes. It no secrete that Bush does what HE wants to do despite the wishes of the American People. He foreign policy is the worst ever and subsequently we will probably be bombed again because of it. He has not problem abusing his position of autority, breaking the law and violating the Constitutional Rights of those who elected him and was sworn to protect. I am a hard core republician and I would have him serve time in prision for his actions: http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0708-27.htm
  • During my lifetime it's a toss up between him and Carter.
  • No, of course not. I don't warm to him personally, but he's done some things very well and some not so well. Nobody is going to know how good a president he is/was till 20 or 30 years down the road. People really oversimplify political matters. Nothing is simple, and nothing is black and white.
  • 1) I found the "Historical rankings of United States Presidents" here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents 2) Which Bush do you mean? I think you cannot really judge the actual president before he retired. And at the end of his presidency, particularly by a double presidency, a president is usually much critized. Anyways, I think he did some useless wars. 3) "The Worst President in History?" Source: http://www.rollingstone.com/news/profile/story/9961300/the_worst_president_in_history 4) "The Worst President in All of American History" Source: http://www.wildnesswithin.com/worst.html
  • He'd need three more terms to be as bad as Carter, who also seems to be running for worst EX-president in history.
  • History takes a while to sort everything out .... IMHO - This question is premature.
  • I agree with you as does the majority, according to his "approval" ratings...
  • He's the worst liar so far...he's not the ugliest. As to being a criminal traitor, well, he's there with Nixion or just a few noches below. As a public speaker he's certainly at the bottom of the barrel. All in all, he's the worst president in my lifetime - and I go all the way back to Ike.
  • In my lifetime Carter is nukmber one in this catagory. Followed by Clinton then Bushy Boy.
  • If you are someone like myself who doesn't like Bush, it's even a bigger issue, people are leaving my SMU here a big scandal over his presidential library that they are trying to build here in Dallas. This is the big library story started by some professors and Methodist ministers people are leaving SMU it's crazy http://protectsmu.org/index.html
  • NO DOUBT ABOUT IT. NOT ONLY THE WORSE PRESIDENT BUT THE WORSE MAN ON EARTH. KILLING MILLIONS OF PEOPLE FOR OIL.
  • Nah, it was William Henry Harrison, he was only president for 31 days, how pathetic was that.
  • William Henry Harrison was the worst president ever...he died 30 days into office and was sick for part of that time. He got nothing done. lol
  • Which "President Bush"?????? One or two!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • According to PollingReport.com, President Bush's, Overall Job Approval Rating is at 26%. His actions in the Katrina crisis, the costly unending war in Iraq (in soldiers lives and taxpayer money), and the collapse of the economy has sealed his fate. Not even his own party is supporting him in his leadership to address this $700 billion dollar bailout. George W. Bush will go down in history as having the worse modern day Presidency.
  • Since ive only experienced 2 in my life time, yes, he is. Ok, well i was alive for Bush 1.0, but was not aware of politics back then.
  • The Worst President in History? One of America's leading historians assesses George W. Bush SEAN WILENTZPosted Apr 21, 2006 12:34 PM clip of article: Flashback: Bush in '99 -- We Warned You! George W. Bush's presidency appears headed for colossal historical disgrace. Barring a cataclysmic event on the order of the terrorist attacks of September 11th, after which the public might rally around the White House once again, there seems to be little the administration can do to avoid being ranked on the lowest tier of U.S. presidents. And that may be the best-case scenario. Many historians are now wondering whether Bush, in fact, will be remembered as the very worst president in all of American history.
  • Frankly, no. Yeah, he sucks at the job - But its not like he's dropped mustard gas on his own people or anything.
  • I haven't studied a lot about presidents, but President Bush Jr. is pretty bad at being president.
  • Nah, what about that guy who died in 30 days? He never did one thing that he said he would! lol. :)
  • nope... we had this one guy who was terrible and died in 2 years, tall guy.. i forget his name.. he died of natural reasons and i'm not being sarcastic.. help me LOL
  • I don't know. I kinda think an elected official is only as bad as the electorate (is that the right word?) ALLOWS him to be. Let's face it...Americans are very lackadaisical when it comes to holding elected officials accountable. We do little more than moan, groan and complain while they steal us blind. But I'm rambling...what exactly is a "good" President? Is there anyone you had in mind to compare President Bush to? And, was that former President REALLY "good" or was he merely successful at not being caught with his hand in the proverbial cookie jar? Perhaps his "goodness" was the indirect result of being dealt a better hand? I think "worst" might be a bit too subjective, but I'll certainly concede that President Bush is probably the most disliked President ever. Much easier to defend.
  • Yes. Case closed.
  • Do you even have to ask. He's not only the worst. He's the most corrupt. If the dems weren't jellyfish, they'd have impeached him and Cheney and put Rumsfeld, Gonzalez and Rove in prison long ago. It's been an entire disgrace. It makes me sick. www.zeitgeistmovie.com. Check out IRAQ for sale, The war profiteers.
  • I would not argue about him being the worst President in recent years. But if you study history, I don't see how anyone can say he is worse that either Franklin Pierce or James Buchanan.
  • Worst? Maybe, maybe not. If he was, why was he elected for a second term? We are definitely worse off than we were at his inauguration. It just seems that he made his decisions to benefit himself and his friends, not for the good of the country.
  • Woodrow Wilson would top my list with him giving us the income tax and taking us off the Gold Standard and turning the country's money over to the Federal Reserve which is a private company. The second would be Lyndon Johnson who escalated the Vietnam war, Clinton would be third on my list for having the most corrupt administration in my lifetime, signing NAFTA and GATT and selling our nulcear missle guidance technology to China (treason). I think Carter and Bush are about tied for fourth place mostly because they are both inept idiots.
  • In terms of international atrocities, he has plenty of rivals.
  • According to a recent survey of presidential historians, Bush is the worst president ever.
  • He has given Nixon a run for his money
  • YES. The only person that could have done worse was Hitler and since he is long dead, no chance of that.
  • In a recent poll taken at my house, even William Henry Harrison was better.
  • nope. worst ever was bill clinton. 2nd worst is barak obama 3rd worstnixon
  • yes 10 times yes think god he's out make sure he go down in the book as the the worst president ever that what it should say when you open your book GEORGE BUSH WORST PRESIDENT EVER. i did vote for him.
  • no he was a good president. rather have an honest fool than a corrupt scholar. i look forward to all the DR's
  • No. Not while there were Clinton, Carter, etc.
  • No, I don't think so. He had a difficult job to do, and the fact that he has such a bad reputation is probably due to the fact that many comedians singled him out as an easy target for jokes...well, that's my humble opinion anyway :p
  • Considering how he LIED about those WMD ... The Unemployment is the WORST since 1974 .... Over 4,800 Americans have been slaughtered in Iraq .. Yep .. He's the worst that I can think of ...
  • We've been in a recession since 2007, thanks to this miserable scumbag's mideastern vendetta. He's broken America. And when it's all said and done, all he's served to do is make the extremists smarter. He should be prosecuted for having stolen the election each time.
  • I don't think so, possibility the biggest war-criminal president ever, next to Lincoln (research this before you go flaming me about Lincoln.) However I'd say that the worst president ever was Woodrow Wilson who signed into law The Federal Reserve Act. This created the banking cartel that is in charge of America's money system.
  • Name another President in American History guilty of treason?
  • Not as long as Mugabe is in the history books. And at least Dubya left the country intact unlike the prat Gorbachev who vanished the country he was president of.
  • Yes, George W. Bush is quite likely the worst president in the 200-year history of the United States ... Only one other president bears comparison to Bush: James K. Polk.
  • as of now, absolutely not, but only time will tell
  • YES, He's The Worst Ever. George Walker Bush began a war on false pretences. He lied to his people when he committed them to the war on Iraq, and on the basis of those lies he has undermined world security and committed his nation to the destruction of much of Iraq. Tens of thousands of Iraqis have died — and over 1,700 Americans — for no reason greater than that being a war-time president would improve his political stature. (Well, it is possible that his personal oil interests, and those of his friends, factored in. Maybe also an idiosyncratic personal grudge, on the order of, ‘I’m going to show up my father and get that damn Saddam Hussein and show I’m tougher than both Saddam and my Dad’ — that raises his Oedipal complex to international dimensions.) That he lied about Iraq’s ‘threat’ to the United States is no unsubstantiated allegation. The recently revealed “Downing Street Memo” is the report of Britain’s’ intelligence chief made to Prime Minister Blair about his trip to the United States eight months before the war in Iraq began, long before it was publicly considered. The memo makes clear that deception and the fitting of facts to serve a military agenda was a high priority for the Bush administration. (‘C’ in the following is Sir Richard Dearlove, head of Britain’s foreign intelligence service, MI 6 , who had just returned from meetings in Washington.) “C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” Let us be blunt. Basing a war on ‘fixed’ evidence is a high crime, a betrayal of the trust of the nation’s citizens. In the United States, it is grounds for impeaching the president and removing him from office. But since Mr Bush’s own Republican Party controls both houses of Congress, such impeachment is, though warranted, unlikely. Mr Bush has undermined global security by legitimizing a doctrine of ‘preemptive war. “ What nation cannot use Mr Bush’s rationale , “to counter a sufficient threat to our national security...to forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act pre-emptively”, in its own interest to attack a neighboring state”? The threshold which prevents nations from legitimately making war on other nations has been dramatically lowered by the Bush administration.
  • No, he is not. Dismal popularity does not equate to failure. And while Obama is touted as potentially the best president ever, he could be the worst one when his words are finally unequivocally matched to his actions. In the end, think of a president not as we do, but as the objective history books should, tallying up all each presidents achievements and failures and comparing them to every other president one by one. Don't be lost in your own ideas, which are more than ever influenced by modern corruption via relationships and media coverage.
  • President Bush isn't the worst president ever because he actually kinda helped when the resesion was going on. Henry Hoover is the worst president because he didn't do anything when the Great Depresion was going on.
  • in my lifetime yes
  • I know he is because he caused a lot of problems and he doesn't even know how to pronounce nuclear.
  • No,FDR did a pretty good job at screwing this country up in the long run.
  • mabye so far....give it 20 years and see if someone even worse is elected
  • George W. Bush is in serious contention for the title of worst president ever.
  • He was until now.
  • I really do believe President Bush is the worst president we’ve ever had
  • Yes ... but worse than that he is a corrupt and bad man ... The presidency is only the job ... Its the man first whose active decision is made to betray his people then lie to the world by his misuse of that position. How did such a moron achieve that position ... amazing! :)
  • No one can tell about him because his change every time
  • Pretty much so. Back in the year 2000, when George W. Bush lost the popular vote and was shoe-horned into office by the Supreme Court in spite of clear conflicts of interest on the part of Scalia and Thomas, the psychology of Little George was known to only a few. To most of us he seemed like a doofus--a more or less well-meaning guy who enjoyed running things like baseball teams and the State of Texas if not too much work was involved. Had been an alcoholic and a drug user, but had apparently come clean in some hazy, quasi-religious way--that was his personal history to many Americans (if not to all those who met with Karl Rove behind closed doors and heard the truth). At any rate, I remember thinking that Bill Clinton had done such a good job over the years getting the budget into a surplus and winning good feelings around the world that it really didn't matter who of the four who were running (Gore, Bradley, McCain, Bush) might win. They all seemed about the same in lots of ways. What we really needed was some respite from Clinton's own penchant for mischief. I liked Clinton. I remember that The New Yorker magazine asked me for my take on the Lewinsky scandal, and I said that on balance, in spite of the brouhaha, I still preferred a president who would make love, not war. Clinton was a flawed human being, that was evident, but he knew it. He never didn't know it. And he was always trying to make amends. But he was exhausting--or the media made him exhausting. I thought we were due for a rest. Little did we know, of course, that the neocons thought we were due for a war. Thinktank gun-jockeys looking for a fight. Do they personally have some human qualities? Who cares. May they rot. At any rate, what I think happened is that when the Bush/Scowcroft/Baker faction decided to use Little George as their presidential poster boy to expand their Middle-East-based wealth and power, they didn't reckon with Cheney and Rumsfeld. They thought their boy would be personable and easy to control. The key moment was when Cheney went looking for a vice-presidential candidate and found himself. Once they had given him the opening and he had publicly used it to aggrandize himself and his agenda, B/S/B realized that for the sake of party solidarity, they had to live with it. When Baker engineered the coup that was Florida (and I do think one of the "perks" Bush offered as a candidate was that Florida was guaranteed ahead of time by Jeb and K. Harris), I think that B/S/B and C/R found themselves in an uneasy alliance--goals were the same, but temperaments were different. Right there at the pivot was Little George. It's pretty clear that Little George requires a constant stream of flattery and cajolery to keep him going, and this was to be supplied by Harriet Miers, Karen Hughes, and Condi Rice. At the same time, his words (and ideas) were going to be supplied by Michael Gerson, who was his favorite speech writer for five or six years, a man who hides his unscrupulous neocon soul beneath a holier-than-thou, falsely modest self presentation. Christian soldier in every sense of the word, and someone who has largely escaped the contempt he deserves for the mess we are in. At the same time, Little George has a hard time with bad news, so he was never going be told the truth--he can't take the truth, as Jack Nicholson might say--this is evident in the famous 9/11 film of Bush reading about his pet goat when he gets news of the WTC. Talk about dumbstruck and unprepared and feckless and doltish! No, I don't think Little George planned the Trade Center attacks. If he had, he would have practiced a smarmy fake reaction, and he didn't. But he did get a feel, just a little feel, right after the attacks, of what it might be like to lead the nation. He got a feel and he liked it, and for the purposes of the neocons, it was a good feel and it gave them something to build on in their plan to overcome the cautious side of his nature, represented by B/S/B. The neocons, as we know to our sorrow, never pay back anything they owe, except perhaps with betrayal, so even though B/S/B got them into office, they were never going to listen to B/S/B unless they absolutely had to. How do you build yourself a madman? Well, first you flatter him, and then you try never to make him angry, and then you feed him ideas that flatter him even more by making him seem to himself sentimentally visionary and powerful and righteous. You appeal to his already evident mean streak and his hot temper by reminding him all the time that he has enemies, and you cultivate his religious side so that the sense of righteous victimization inherent in extreme religion comes out. If he were not already an ignorant, dependant, fragile, and rigid person, he would not be susceptible to this sort of conditioning, but by temperament and practice, he has nothing of his own to counter your efforts. Then you hire a few shyster-sycophants like John Yoo to tell him (ignorant as he is, with no actual understanding of the Constitution), that as president he can do whatever he wants. So, here he is, Little George, caught between the devil (Cheney) and the deep blue sea (fifty-some years of being infantilized by B/S/B). Cheney and Rumsfeld, aided by Rice and Miers and Hughes, convince him that his masculinity will only be enhanced by doing all the masculine things he missed out on over the years, especially making war. And Gerson gives his war a virtuous, godly gloss. And Gerson's words come out of his mouth so often that he believes them and thinks they are his. In the meantime, Karl Rove continues to think that he is the maestro, playing Little George (and his base and the rest of the nation) like his own personal piano. Playing the president, for Rove, means enhancing LIttle George's actual dependency while encouraging him to think that he's the boss (allowing him to call you "Turdblossom", for example, and isn't it telling that "turd" seems to be Bush's favorite imprecation, rather than, say, "fuck"?). Bush is the worst possible president because he is simultaneously unusually ignorant for a president and unusually shallow, as well as desperate for a success he can call his own. I can see how in a certain sort of era--say an era of prosperity and world peace (can you think of one? I can't) an unusually ignorant and shallow man could bump along in the presidency for a few years without creating havoc and destruction, but these years didn't happen to be peaceful and prosperous, they happened to be delicate and dangerous. Clinton knew that, and he approached his compromising and self-contradictory foreign policy tasks with care. But Bush and his fellow boors were so blind that they adopted as their motto "anything but Clinton", sheer contrarianism and resentment. It wasn't enough to them for the US to be powerful, as it was in the Clinton years, or to be generally respected and appreciated--they wanted something more sensational--power they could feel, power that was erotic and fetishistic, power that was uncomfortable for others, power that would make them feel big by making others feel small, power that would show Clinton up. That's the tit Little George has been sucking for the last six years--the deluded propaganda of the neocons, addressed first to him and through him to the rest of us. What we saw the other night, when he proposed more war against more "foes" was the madman the last six years have created. This time, in his war against Iran, he doesn't even feel the need for minimal PR, as he did before attacking Iraq. All he is bothering with are signals--ships moving here, admirals moving there, consulates being raided in this other place. He no longer cares about the opinions of the voters, the Congress, the generals, the press, and he especially disdains the opinions of B/S/and B. Thanks to Gerson, he identifies his own little ideas with God (a blasphemy, of course, but hey, there's lots of precedent on this), so there's no telling what he will do. We can tell by the evidence of the last two months that whatever it is, it will be exactly the thing that the majority of the voters do not want him to do, exactly the thing that James Baker himself doesn't want him to do. The propaganda that Bush's sponsors and handlers have poured forth has ceased to persuade the voters but succeeded beyond all measure in convincing the man himself. He will tell himself that God is talking to him, or that he is possessed of an extra measure of courage, or he that he is simply compelled to do whatever it is. The soldiers will pay the price in blood. We will pay the price in money. The Iraqis will pay the price in horror. The Iranians will pay the price, possibly, in the almost unimaginable terror of nuclear attack. Probably, the Israelis will pay the price, too. Little George isn't the same guy he was in 2000, the guy described by Gail Sheehy in her Vanity Fair profile--hyper-competitive and dyslexic, prone to cheat at games, always swinging between screwing up and making up, hating criticism and disagreement, careless of others but often charming. He is no longer the guy who the Republicans thought they could control (unlike, say, McCain). The small pathologies of Bush the candidate have, thanks to the purposes of the neocons and the religious right, been enhanced and upgraded. We have a bona fide madman now, who thinks of himself in a grandiose way as single-handedly turning the tide of history. Some of his Frankensteins have bailed, some haven't dared to, and others still seem to believe. His actions and his orders, especially about Iran, seem to be telling us that he will stop at nothing to prove his dominance. The elder Bush(es), Scrowcroft, Baker, and their friends, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gerson, and the neocons have made the monster and in the process endangered the country, the Constitution, and the world, not to mention the sanity of wretches like Jose Padilla (for an analysis of the real reason Gitmo continues to exist, Maybe the bums planned this mess for their own profit, or maybe they planned to profit without mess; maybe some of them regret what they have wrought. However, they all share the blame for whatever he does next.
  • Indubitably!
  • It's time to get over with it.

Copyright 2018, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy