by spanky121212 on November 28th, 2006

Question

Help answer this question below.

Has George W. Bush been a good president and if not, who would have been better?

Like
Report

Share:: Facebook; Twitter; Other

Answers. 45 helpful answers below.

by SalientAlien on December 4th, 2006
Maybe not "good", but "effective". He's had to make a lot of tough choices and for the most part he's stood by them. No one can say how things would have turned out if somebody else were president. I tend to think that most courses would have come to war sooner or later. Perhaps a better orator could ease tensions, or a more charismatic leader could make us feel better about it. But feeling better about it and doing something about it are two different things. The problems are still there, regardless of who is president.
Comments
- uhg, i couldn't disagree with you more. effective? how so, in plummeting our country in to debt when Clinton worked so hard to make a surplus? great job bush! for killing thousands of innocent American soldiers for his own gains! greta job bush! for making us more of a target for the middle east's hate, wow! EFFECTIVE AS HELL!
  
  Report
  
  by seaofgrass on December 4th, 2006
- I am just going by my own observations. My own life has been affected very little by his presidency one way or the other. Everything else is just political rhetoric. Once you've subscribed to this, you stop thinking for yourself and simply repeat what others have told you. Suggesting that someone else could just come in and wipe away all our problems is silly. But say what you like, it's a free country after all.
  
  Report
  
  by SalientAlien on December 4th, 2006
- "free" for now, we'll see how long that lasts
  
  Report
  
  by seaofgrass on December 4th, 2006
- See, that's what I'm talking about. Someone has told you that scary ol' Bush has come to take all our freedom. For some reason you block out all other ideas and repeat this as loud and often as you can.
  
  Report
  
  by SalientAlien on December 4th, 2006
- No, i gain my information for a wide range of sources. Wire tapping, was that a violation of freedom? yes. the fact that our votes are tampered with, a violation of freedom. That Bush passed a torture bill to allow torture for prisoners even without a trial, another prime example. After the whole republican fiasco after the child's book about Cuba in elementary schools, i can see freedom of speech going out the window soon.
  
  Report
  
  by seaofgrass on December 4th, 2006
- That's fine, as long as you allow yourself to re-evaluate your opinions as new information is available.
  
  Report
  
  by SalientAlien on December 4th, 2006
- You've got a great point here, SalientAlien. He's not the man to blame for all of our issues. My personal leaning is that he has not been a good president, but I still respect him in some ways. I don't think he can possibly screw up this country any more than it already is...and most of that he has zero control over anyway. It's nice to be able to finger him for the failing economy and high gas prices, but the truth is, he's not in charge of those numbers. We are.
  
  Report
  
  by Simply msFortunate on December 4th, 2006
- Exactly. It's better to consider what might be done to improve things than to finger point.
  
  Report
  
  by SalientAlien on December 4th, 2006
- Yeah, but regardless, this question asked specifically about him, and so finger pointing is indeed called for, granted you share an opinion like mine.
  
  Report
  
  by seaofgrass on December 4th, 2006
- True, but it would be nice to hear something constructive.
  
  Report
  
  by SalientAlien on December 4th, 2006
- we could post a question for exactly what you'd like to talk about
  
  Report
  
  by seaofgrass on December 4th, 2006
- +5 points for stateing an unpopular opinion. I would disagree on somethings but I think we could agree on other things. Either way I think the "haters" go too far sometimes.
  
  Report
  
  by Valparaiso on January 16th, 2007
- I couldn't disagree more. The man is a coward, a cheat, a drug addict and a hopeless failure as president. He has racked up ruinous debt and brought international contempt on the country through his murderous and unnecessary war.
  
  Report
  
  by DavidHume on January 25th, 2007
- Effective? In what? Completely screwing up the budget, taking away more constitutional righs, and hurting our relations with other countires? In that case, I agree with you.
  
  Report
  
  by zee-ster on February 7th, 2007
- Fighting terrorism. We havn't had a terrorist attack in 5 years or so. And don't try and tell me that no one is trying.
  
  Report
  
  by Valparaiso on February 7th, 2007
- Hmm. I wonder if you consider no terrorist attacks for 5 years to be worth the roughly 2000 American lives and maybe 30,000 Iraqi lives? The trouble is that this policy plays into the hands of terrorists; each innocent civilian killed creates a new group of angry people, and they're angry at the U.S. and the UK. It's also worth mentioning that there have been plenty of terrorist attacks not in the U.S., notably in London and Madrid.
  
  Report
  
  by DavidHume on February 7th, 2007
- I don't think London was organized with a major group it was a bunch of students was it not? And spain can expect more of this now that they have surrendered. BTW I don't agree with the Iraq war, I never did. But I am saying that we havn't had any terrorist attacks on US soil which means he must be doing something right to prevent it thus far.
  
  Report
  
  by Valparaiso on February 7th, 2007
- Val: I keep a bottle of Anti-Bear Repellent in my pocket at all times. It's quite a deterrent, believe me. No bear has even came close to me.
  
  Report
  
  by Aristocles on February 27th, 2007
- Excuse the sarcasm, but I find that to be a proper analogy. Just because we haven't been attacked doesn't mean that it's because we have thwarted terrorists.
  
  Report
  
  by Aristocles on February 27th, 2007
- What about the terroists who wanted to get on the planes in Britian and crash into the US. That was a combined British and American effort. There have been a few arrests. Plus I really don't think Al Queda is going to let up on us when they know they can pull off an attack here.
  
  Report
  
  by Valparaiso on February 27th, 2007
- Aristocles, well said. Valparaiso, correlation does not prove causality. There is more terrorism now than there was before 9/11. If you look at Afghanistan for example, the Taleban are coming back. I don't think Al Quaeda is in any way beaten, nor has Osama bin Laden been apprehended. I hope there continues to be no terrorism on the USA's soil, but you have to at least consider the hypothesis that AQ regard Iraq as not just their easiest opportunity to inflict pain on America, but also a breeding ground for new recruits.
  
  Report
  
  by DavidHume on February 27th, 2007
- Ok, I've had my quota of this argument for the week, so I'll just pop off my standard provocative fact: last year, 34,000 people were killed by septicemia, the #9 killer in the U.S. This number was completely dwarfed by heart disease (2+ million deaths), and in turn it dwarfs terrorism deaths (0). So let's just get our responses to threats to be somewhat closer to being proportionate to the actual danger, and move on, ok?
  
  Report
  
  by Stableboy on February 27th, 2007
- Yeah, let's fight septicemia there so we don't have to fight it here!
  
  Report
  
  by Aristocles on February 27th, 2007
- Yes... clearly either we're doing an AMAZING job of preventing terrorism, or a WONDERFUL job of overestimating the threat. Can't figure which, although nobody's searched my shoes today so there may be something I'm not noticing.
  
  Report
  
  by Stableboy on February 27th, 2007
- Maybe they searched all of your other shoes when you weren't home.
  
  Report
  
  by Aristocles on February 27th, 2007
- HA! Well, it seems clear that if the threat were from something non-human -- a virus perhaps -- we wouldn't be spending so many lives and so much money on it. So it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the fact that the threat has religious-conflict overtones to it may be a contributing factor in our fear and aggression levels. We still haven't really ramped up for the bird flu, which could conceivably wipe out most of the population, or global warming for that matter. We value our threats by how much they piss us off.
  
  Report
  
  by Stableboy on February 27th, 2007
- Well said. It's much harder to rally your citizens against an invisible germ than another country with a wholly different god and culture--- even if the real enemies are within the minority of that country.
  
  Report
  
  by Aristocles on February 27th, 2007
- oh come on I can't belive you think the bird flu is going to kill us all that is the most ridiculous thing I ever heard. What ever happened to SARS? The last diesease that was gonna kill us all? Or how about West Nile Virus? That was gonna kill us all too. Can't you recognize history repeating itself in the space of 3 or 4 years? And I'm not saying that Bush is a good president or even effective. My argument was just that we havn't had a terrorist attack on US soil since 2001 and since that is an improvement we should therefore say that he has been effective in that regard. I know he's been ineffective in Iraq and things are now looking worse in Afganistan. If you ask me Bush is mostly ineffective but I'm not going to go around like a Bush hater and claim he's the worst president ever because while they may be few he does have some acomplishments to highlight.
  
  Report
  
  by Valparaiso on February 27th, 2007
- Name them.
  
  Report
  
  by DavidHume on February 27th, 2007
- You raise good points about the germs. I'll give you that. However, I'll still say that terrorism has not decreased whatsoever. And although being a Bush-hater is fashionable, it's also sane. He has done far too many things wrong to brush aside. (An understatement.)
  
  Report
  
  by Aristocles on February 27th, 2007
- Just so we're clear: I'm not saying we should ignore the threat of terrorism -- I'm saying we should try to be objective about it as a threat, when compared to other threats. Are we treating it proportionately and rationally, or are we reacting out of anger and fear over 9/11? It seems clear to me that we're doing the latter -- we're pissed off about radical Islam, and that's distorting our assessment of how severe a threat this is. We don't get pissed off at viruses, because they don't disagree with our politics and religion -- we DO get angry at those who disagree with us, as we see here on this thread and on the bag every day. Everyone loves to go on and on about what a terrible threat their opponent is to life on Earth... how God should smite those who hate us. None of that has anything to do with rational threat-mitigation.
  
  Report
  
  by Stableboy on February 27th, 2007
- Nah God shouldn't smite anyone, but I think we need to destroy our enemies that are trying to kill us. And trust me almost everyone has a radically different opinion on politics and religion then I do but I don't advocate their death or destruction. Oh and David our economy is back up at least for the time being. I'll give Bush the economy (to the extent which is his responsible which isn't much but a bit) and I'll give Bush that terrorists attacks on this country have been thawarted since 2001. But other then that Afganistan was doing good, now getting worse. Iraq stupid from the beginning and now we're stuck between choosing between our own troops and a violent ethnic cleansing.
  
  Report
  
  by Valparaiso on February 27th, 2007
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
32 comments | Post one | Permalink
by like a virgin on December 4th, 2006
No, he's not been good; almost anybody else would do better than he.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by FineBalance . on December 4th, 2006
Bush has done extreme damage to American economy, making more enemies, and putting the life of every American in danger. If we have to choose from the last Presendtial race, it is difficult to say as they have not performed. I believe John Kerry was an ethical man. He should have been choice.

================================================

Bush govt could not conrtol the escalating oil prices which has resulted in tremendous inflation rate. The American dollars have slided atleast by 30% in the international market. The world is cautious about investing in America. The American economy has been effected because of the lower dollar value. The countries those are pegged with US dollar are looking to make their currency independent. Many European countries and many oil producing countries have buying and selling fule in Euros. This has effected American, their cost of living, their investments in USD.

The economy of the America shook after US attacked Iraq. The Middle East was destabilized, the Arabs needed more money to protect their land, they exploited the oil market. The fuel prices jumped from USD 30 per barrel to USD 70. There are multiple rumours from the Gulf that Bush is stealing oil from the Turkey to his oil refineries. Besides, the Saddam govt was selling the price to UN at very cheap rate (Food for oil program) which balanced the supply of the oil in the international market. OPEC and Saudi Arabia had no choice then to lower the oil prices. There are many factors involved in it. After the Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the Saudi govt deployed US soldiers to protect their land from the Saddam. Their economy was effected coz of US military's presence. They sold oil at much lower rates. However, after Iraq's invasion by US, that fear no longer exists for Saudi. The US soldiers were removed from Saudi to fight in the Iraq. That is when OPEC came to picture.
Comments
- I keep hearing that Bush has been bad for the economy. I'm curious, what are the arguments for this?
  
  Report
  
  by SalientAlien on December 4th, 2006
- Bush govt could not conrtol the escalating oil prices which has resulted in tremendous inflation rate. The American dollars have slided atleast by 30% in the international market. The world is cautious about investing in America. The American economy has been effected because of the lower dollar value. The countries those are pegged with US dollar are looking to make their currency independent. Many European countries and many oil producing countries have buying and selling fule in Euros. This has effected American, their cost of living, their investments in USD.
  
  Report
  
  by FineBalance . on December 4th, 2006
- The US government has classically had a small role in the economy. I'm not clear on how these aspects of the economy can be attributable to the present administration.
  
  Report
  
  by SalientAlien on December 4th, 2006
- The economy of the America shook after US attacked Iraq. The Middle East was destabilized, the Arabs needed more money to protect their land, they exploited the oil market. The fuel prices jumped from USD 30 per barrel to USD 70. There are multiple rumours from the Gulf that Bush is stealing oil from the Turkey to his oil refineries. Besides, the Saddam govt was selling the price to UN at very cheap rate (Food for oil program) which balanced the supply of the oil in the international market. OPEC and Saudi Arabia had no choice then to lower the oil prices. There are many factors involved in it. After the Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the Saudi govt deployed US soldiers to protect their land from the Saddam. Their economy was effected coz of US military's presence. They sold oil at much lower rates. However, after Iraq's invasion by US, that fear no longer exists for Saudi. The US soldiers were removed from Saudi to fight in the Iraq. That is when OPEC came to picture.
  
  Report
  
  by FineBalance . on December 4th, 2006
- I would think there are many more factors that go into the price of oil and the US economy but you do have a point there.
  
  Report
  
  by SalientAlien on December 4th, 2006
- It would only be fair for the one who rated it down to do it with a valid reason. There are other ways of reaching on the top; that is by increasing your standards, reasoing and logic.
  
  Report
  
  by FineBalance . on December 5th, 2006
- I don't know who rated you down but maybe they didn't read your comments. I gave you a +3.
  
  Report
  
  by SalientAlien on December 5th, 2006
- Thanks, the reasoning is essential in life, this what makes us Humans.
  
  Report
  
  by FineBalance . on December 5th, 2006
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
8 comments | Post one | Permalink
by DavidHume on January 25th, 2007
No. A dreadful one. Almost anyone would have been better. Even John Kerry.

I thought his recent speech was very telling. As his support among the public and Congress, and even his own supporters, ebbs away like water through sand, he is calling for more time and better planning, when he should have taken more time and planned better before getting the U.S. involved in this adventure.

More time would have been well spent on letting the UN do its job, as it was doing, four years ago. Better planning would have led him to the same conclusion his father came to in 1990, that the invasion and military occupation of Iraq was an enterprise whose risks far outweighed any possible benefits to either country.

His speech tells, better than any of his many critics could, of the surreal doubletalk so beloved by him. With over 3000 "coalition" deaths and between 55,000 and 355,000 Iraqi deaths since the start of the conflict, with the situation there continuing to spiral out of control, asking for more time now amounts to asking for the clock to turn back. Sadly for all, it can't be done.

I agree with Jim Webb. "The president took us into this war recklessly," said Mr Webb. "We are now, as a nation, held hostage to the predictable - and predicted - disarray that has followed."

Those of us who opposed this war did indeed predict the chaos and misery which it has quite gratuitously caused. The only plus side was the removal of a dictator from power; but in exchange, as well as all the death and destruction, America's reputation is on the floor. Going into this war over WMDs which turned out not to have existed, and over spurious concerns about Iraqi human rights (Iraqis' rights are far far worse now than they ever were under Saddam), makes America look to the world like bullies, and corrupt incompetent bullies at that.

Bush said "And I ask you to support our troops in the field and those on their way"; the best way to support the troops would be to bring them home, intead of sending even more out there to risk death to bolster Bush's delusions. Even Nixon had more political honesty and maturity than this. By sending these additional troops to Iraq, Bush arguably crosses the line from incompetence into outright criminality.

Not just the war but the manner in which it has been fought have been contemptible. The prisoner abuse, the rape and murder of civilians, the bungled terrorist-style execution of the former head of state, and the continuing existence of a modern-day Gulag in Cuba, all play directly into the hands of the very people who Bush claims to oppose, the militant Islamic movements of the world. Remember when Bush invited his military opponents in Iraq to "Bring it on"? Well, it looks like they took him at his word. Nobody else should, ever.

As for his other initiatives on fuel and the like; if these issues had been flagged up as important in 2000, if this had been a policy focus instead of the disastrous boondoggle of the war in Iraq, I would have applauded it. Now it looks like the desperate manoevering of a failed president, swirling in a cesspool of his own stupidity and moral bankruptcy.
Comments
- Yeah, verily.
  
  Report
  
  by judgebill on May 28th, 2008
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
1 comment | Post one | Permalink
by Simply msFortunate on December 4th, 2006
I don't think so, and I think most of the country agrees with me. Granted, he has been saddled with a lot of issues. He has been at least consistent and has not ever "misunderestimated" the threat of our "unseen" enemies...

A lot of people say he's stupid, but it's not that. The man went to Yale! He may not be an intellectual, but his intelligence is not something I question.

There are a lot of decisions he's made that I've not agreed with. However, I wonder if John Kerry would have done any better. I don't think he was a capable guy either - and I question the motives of the Democratic party every day with regard to that nomination in 2004.

So, in short, I disagree with W's decisions, especially in foreign policy. He is not exactly the most diplomatic dude out there. I admire that he has been calm under the pressure of ruling this fickle country. I don't hate the man. W's the kind of guy I'd like to have a beer with at the end of the day.

I'd have loved to see Howard Dean in office, in all honesty.
Comments
- Wow, someone didn't like this answer one bit. I can't decide if it's extreme liberals or extreme conservatives downrating my very moderate answer.
  
  Report
  
  by Simply msFortunate on December 5th, 2006
- I think that beer might turn into a beer bong :)
  
  Report
  
  by BobSaccamano-is-back on January 16th, 2007
- Yeah, I don't think he'd let you away with just one beer. It'd be tequila and sparkling wine with cocaine chasers and you'd be up all night!
  
  Report
  
  by DavidHume on January 25th, 2007
- Sounds like my kind of party, guys! Show me the way to the White House! ;-)
  
  Report
  
  by Simply msFortunate on January 25th, 2007
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
4 comments | Post one | Permalink
by Dinocex on December 5th, 2006
I am constantly taken back the conservative bent of this site.

Lets look at the facts. George Bush did not enter office without any strings attached. He lost the popular vote and was more or less installed by the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore.

Since that time, he took a budget surplus and the longest period of economic growth in our nation's history and turned it into a massive deficit that grows every year.

After September 11th, George Bush inhereted our nation at its most unified. People were ready and willing to get behind our leader. He made a good decision to get into Afghanistan but did not finish the job, and now the Taliban is resurgent.

He took that faith we placed in him and squandered it. By invading Iraq, he ignored the advice of some of the most brilliant intelligence advisors who told him that Iraq had no WMDs, and he ignored the advice of the most brilliant minds in the military, telling him that we would be unable to sustain Iraq with the force that he sent. Instead of listening to these wise individuals, he fired them.

He has squandered our allies by ignoring the Geneva Conventions. He gave the world the finger when he not only rejected the Kyoto Protocol, but he refused to negotiate a new one.

Under his administration, corporate lobbyists have taken an even greater role in writing administration-backed legislation. Dick Cheney invited some of the biggest corporate lobbyists from the oil and gas industry into his office and from the meeting came the U.S. Energy Bill, which gave billions in tax cuts to the oil and gas industries.

This is just a start but my fingers are tired. Please, don't say he's a good president just because he's a "straight shooter" or some other ignorant opinion based only on face-value judgment.

A better president would have been Al Gore, John Mccain, John Kerry, basically anyone less willing to actively spit in the face of the American people and the international community.
Comments
- id add points here but...ive reached my limit for the day. i totally agree with you and you have my support!
  
  Report
  
  by cdPlaya363 on March 8th, 2007
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
1 comment | Post one | Permalink
by seaofgrass on December 4th, 2006
I don't believe President Bush has done a "good" nor an "Effective" job at all. His really only push has been this fight on terror after 911, which we stood behind him because we were attacked and caught up in nationalistic feelings. However he hasn't even caught the man repsonsible for 911, after 5 years, that's pathetic.
Nor has he made progress in this war on terror. instead he's been exposed as a liar and tricked the masses in to continuing his fathers war in iraq for oiling, in doing so he's spent 250 billion dollars, and he's tyring to pass a new bill for another 150 billion dollars (which will be passed bcause we need to support our troops).

sigh, no, he's a god-awful president who in fact uses god as his defense for many of his actions.

his only other noticeable work was the No child left behind act which he does nto fund nor support anymore, and students are in no better condition than before.

Had the eleciton not be stolen by tampered voting machines (which is a complete violation of our most sacred democratic right, the right to vote) i think Al Gore would have been much better, hell, even weak-boned Kerry would have done better.
Comments
- I know you posted this on Dec. 4, but I would like to update, it has not cost us 400 billion
  
  Report
  
  by BobSaccamano-is-back on January 16th, 2007
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
1 comment | Post one | Permalink
by goldiemae on November 29th, 2006
I think he tries hard, but no, he is not a good president. I wouldn't want to be in his shoes, however. He's gotten himself in so deep, there is no immediate solution to America's problems or the war in Iraq. I think Bill Clinton should be president again. Despite his reputation as a womanizer, our budget was in the black for the first time in 30 years, and he never did a single thing to harm the country. I'm sure there are many who will disagree with me, and yes, I am a democrat. However, there have been some very good Republican presidents: Eisenhower and Reagan were both worthy of respect and admiration, not to mention my votes. I support candidates, not political parties. Just thought I'd throw that in.
Comments
- I agree with you on that one! Clinton was one of the best presidents we've seen in modern years. He did wonderful things for the economy, and he had a personality. The country should have kept out of his personal business - affair with an intern or no. It's good that people out there don't feed into the two-party system by voting strictly for "their" party, so it's great to hear someone say that. Nice answer.
  
  Report
  
  by Simply msFortunate on December 4th, 2006
- I agree with you glorybox829. Of the present time, Clinton is still most respected and liked US president all over the world. Not only he earned respect for himself, but also made a better world to live in. Bush senior attacked Iraq in 1992 and brought down risk on every US citizen. Clinton could have continued the same philosphy, but he became a peacemaker, the oil prices came down to USD 30 a barrel. He still holds amazing chrisma around himself. He has a aura that is very soothing.
  
  Report
  
  by FineBalance . on December 5th, 2006
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
2 comments | Post one | Permalink
by tripwire on November 28th, 2006
No, because he thinks he can lie with impunity.
A better president would be Judge Judy.
Comments
- And I wanna lay with impunity first!
  
  Report
  
  by tripwire on November 28th, 2006
- Gee, like I can't name a few others who have lied in office . . . Not that it's right, I'm just saying.
  
  Report
  
  by MyKinKStar on December 4th, 2006
- Well, you do have a valid point!
  
  Report
  
  by tripwire on December 4th, 2006
- good one
  
  Report
  
  by FineBalance . on December 5th, 2006
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
4 comments | Post one | Permalink
by Sunblynd 5.0 on December 4th, 2006
Im laughing to hard to answer this seriously.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by spanky121212 on November 28th, 2006
No but a good Pres would be Martin Luther King.
Comments
- true true
  
  Report
  
  by browneyedbeauty on November 28th, 2006
- I think a three-legged goat would be an improvement over Bush...
  
  Report
  
  by Mrs.mezzo is a Wagnerian soprano on November 29th, 2006
- hah..nice. i so so agree.
  
  Report
  
  by browneyedbeauty on November 29th, 2006
- Maybe Martin Luther King, Jr...unfortunately, he is dead.
  
  Report
  
  by AntigoneRising on December 4th, 2006
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
4 comments | Post one | Permalink
by needtoknow on May 28th, 2008
My cat would have been better., He has been a crappy president, just ask every family that lost a loved one in that no good war, They didn't complain, they went, they died.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by Wide Awake @ has closing date woo hoo on May 28th, 2008
No.
Lime Jello would have been better, with or without whipped cream.
Comments
- Oh come on...you can't go insulting Jell-O like that! LOL!
  
  Report
  
  by redcatt63 is around here somewhere...... on May 28th, 2008
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
1 comment | Post one | Permalink
by Fizzy_12 on February 19th, 2007
I thinke did a good job, he has stuck by his policies and i believe he has done a much better job than John Kerry ever could have done.
Comments
- I'll take flak for this but, I agree WHOLEHEARTEDLY!!
  
  Report
  
  by Capt. Jack Sparrow GALCIY on March 21st, 2007
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
1 comment | Post one | Permalink
by Anonymous on January 16th, 2007
I know many people will disagree with me:
He is the best president we've had in at least 10 years!!

Let's See:

The Jobless rates have fallen (meaning more people have jobs now in America [in President George Bush's two terms])

We have not had another terrorist attack since 9/11 which means why would we pull our troops out now??

He believes that gay marriages are not suitable, and He quotes the Bible saying that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

He cares about what even the Democrats have to say (like in congress)even though he may disagree with the topics/issues they bring up.

Plus, if you really didn't want him as our president, you shouldn't have voted for him. He did win the election for two terms in a row, so people obviously did want him in office!

So really, I don't want you to write nasty comments back to me, I just want you to realize where we stand as a country with George Bush as our president.

Besides,
He doesn't have affairs with monica lewinski (if ya know what I mean...)
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by koldkanuck on May 28th, 2008
Alfred E Newman
Comments
- Good one!
  
  Report
  
  by Scooter on May 28th, 2008
- They kinda look alike if you think about it....LOL!
  
  Report
  
  by redcatt63 is around here somewhere...... on May 28th, 2008
- Redcatt I was thinking the very same thing. It's frightening.
  
  Report
  
  by Scooter on May 28th, 2008
- LOL...too funny! (well, either he looks like Alfred, or he looks like Howdy Doody...you be the judge!)
  
  Report
  
  by redcatt63 is around here somewhere...... on May 28th, 2008
- Newman has a higher IQ
  
  Report
  
  by koldkanuck on May 28th, 2008
- well, so does Howdy Doody...if you meant higher I.Q. than Bush! LOL!
  
  Report
  
  by redcatt63 is around here somewhere...... on May 28th, 2008
- Yes i did and yes he does however HD has a wooden personality
  
  Report
  
  by koldkanuck on May 28th, 2008
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
7 comments | Post one | Permalink
by redcatt63 is around here somewhere...... on May 28th, 2008
He' probably been the worst president this country has ever seen. The majority of other posters have certainly created a long list as to why. A monkey could have run this country better!
Comments
- :) )
  
  Report
  
  by kedar on May 30th, 2008
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
1 comment | Post one | Permalink
by Think-About-It on February 27th, 2007
Put your name and my name in a bag, shake it, close your eyes, draw a name out, and LIKE MAGIC A BETTER PRESIDENT!
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by anonymous on January 16th, 2007
Yes, I think that he has been a good president.

I think that his successes outweigh his failures, and that he is very under-rated. A lot of people that answer this question will have absolutely no knowledge about George W. Bush at all. It is a common trend, especially among young people to say that George Bush "sucks". What would John Kerry have done that would have made things better?

Bush has so far sucessfully converted a country with no freedom into a county with an equal and democratic system.

He has brought one of the worst terrorist dictators in the last hundred years to justice.

He has all but destroyed Al Quida. Only a few small sects remain,...most of which are a lot closer than you think.

I loved Clinton, but when people whine about gas prices,...from now on just know that Clinton proposed a standard $3.00 per gallon gas rate.
Bush shot this down.

He has definitely done a better job than kerry would have.
Al Gore MIGHT have been a better president, and technically he was elected,...but we'll most likely never get the chance to see how he would do.
Comments
- "Only a few small sects remain"? Tell that to the troops who are losing the war against them as we speak!
  
  Report
  
  by DavidHume on January 25th, 2007
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
1 comment | Post one | Permalink
by Valparaiso on January 16th, 2007
I'm not a Bush hater, but a lot of his foriegn policy has been very questionable as has his interpretation of the constitution.

He's not a disaster that a lot of people make him out to be but he's done a lot of damage that will take some time to heal.

In '04 I voted for Kerry because I thought he would do less damage and not because I thought he would actually do anything good. Although at this point I'm so ticked off with Kerry I'd vote for Bush for 3 more terms before I give Kerry another vote.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by Twisted Taco on January 19th, 2009
Ronald McDonald would have made a better president than that clown did
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by Mr. Xtacy on January 19th, 2009
the guy down the street a bum a hobo ANYBODY
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by shrinkess on November 30th, 2008
ANYONE ELSE
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by Slipshod Wombat and Co. on November 30th, 2008
I liked him. Now, he didn't do a spontaneous job, and there aren't many that agree with me, but oh well.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by erbhie88 on June 3rd, 2008
I think George was a great comedian... although I don't think he's a great president... I think Mickey Mouse wouold make a better president
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by DaveSmit on May 30th, 2008
George Bush dealt effectively with one of the greatest tragedies in our countries history, 9/11. The administration has prevented another terrorist attack from occuring since then. (Amazing, since at the time everyone was predicting that many more would occur, yet no major terrorist attack has occurred in America since. Meanwhile other countries have suffered from many terrorist attacks.) This security has restored American's faith in the safety of airlines, public tranport, and even living in a big city. While every president makes some mistakes, I think we also need to point out accomplishments, and this is not a minor one. It seems very possible that a different president, not reacting as strongly, may have unwittingly allowed many more terrorist attacks to occur before the American people forced him to action. Also, I think that every President deserves respect, because the the position which he has been elected to, regardless of your view of his politics.
Comments
- Well said DaveSmit.
  
  Report
  
  by pinkygirl on November 30th, 2008
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
1 comment | Post one | Permalink
by shammers still slogging along on May 29th, 2008
With 70 percent of the population saying they do not like the direction the country is headed, I would have to say he has not been a good leader to lead us to where we are. I honestly do not think anyone with a high degree of sanity would run for president. Power crazy maybe.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by bookworm on March 1st, 2009
OBAMA! Anyone, his dog, my dog, the mailman he was such an idiot. I use to feel so embarrassed watching him on TV.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by Eckholdt on March 1st, 2009
It’s hard to say. Bush defiantly had one of the hardest presidencies. FDR dealt with depression and world war. Cold War president's dealt with nuclear proliferation. Bush had 9/11(don't give me that shit saying it was planned), Katrina, and an Islamic world more driven than ever on destroying Western powers. He had to deal with inner threats of the United States. It all depends what side you are on. Most democrats will say he did no good and some Republicans don't like him. He did have a very hard term though including that he had to deal with a predominantly democratic Congress which basically didn't help him pass anything. The economy is another thing, that started way before him with Carter, though he may not have helped. Torture of prisoners? If it helps protect citizens (non-combatants, children) it’s worth it. People hate him because it’s the cool thing to do apparently. In the end people in America who hate Bush obviously don't know fuck about Checks and Balance, it was Congress fault to. I am not calling him my messiah or the best, but not the worst or bad. Now all we have to do now is wait and see how the democrats messiah(Obama) works out. Comment back and i'll rip your arguments to fuck. I’m 16
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by nervnetwork on November 30th, 2008
Bush was terrible! i could have done better!!!

and yes, i am a high school student..
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by Rinky Dinky Do on November 30th, 2008
What kind of a person still has to ask if George WTF Bush has been a good president? Hello! Are you from outer space? As for the second part of your question, his dog would have made a better president
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by blackRain on November 30th, 2008
i think he took adventage of it
he would be just fine if we didnt go to war
Comments
- ok... why did i get down rated?!
  
  Report
  
  by blackRain on March 1st, 2009
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
1 comment | Post one | Permalink
by VOD on November 30th, 2008
Uh- no- he has not.Who better? Hmmmm... my three year old nephew knows right from wrong, is a better communicator and never had a drinking problem. id vote for him over Soon-To-Be-EX-President Bush.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by judgebill on May 28th, 2008
I'll go with Alfred E. Neuman
Comments
- Notice how much Alfred and George look alike? Scary! LOL!
  
  Report
  
  by redcatt63 is around here somewhere...... on January 19th, 2009
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
1 comment | Post one | Permalink
by yoyohihiyohi on May 28th, 2008
I think hes been a great president who takes nothing from the middle east and terrorists. What would john kerry have done had he been president during 9/11? probably nothing and cower in fear from the terrorists. George bush showed any terrorist out there not to mess with the U.S....he doesnt let anyone push us around. Just like Israel doesnt take anything from the muslims in the middle east.
Comments
- Right. Don't take anything from those middle east terrorists. Bomb the shit out of them, their sisters and brothers, aunts and uncles. Teach them a lesson. In the meantime, what's a few American lives compared with bombing Iraq civilians. And yes, lets run up the national debt to make our kids and grand kids pay for this fighting (that nobody really wants) so we don't have to pay for it now. And let's be sure to curb all this wild and crazy spending on education and healthcare so we can put more money into guns and bullets. Oh yes, let's be sure we pray to God every night because he is certainly on our side...how could he support those chidren, mothers, aunts and uncles in Iraq. And Afghanistan.
  
  Report
  
  by judgebill on May 28th, 2008
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
1 comment | Post one | Permalink
by FirstFreeCitizen on June 3rd, 2008
Any president has the potential to be a great leader with a good administration backing them up. Even someone with strong ties to foreign oil and a faith associated with fundamentalist Christians can be forced to put such things aside with a cabinet focused on the soul purpose of creating a prosperous nation with evenly distributed wealth as well as a healthy environment. One cannot simply look at the president and ask themselves whether good leadership was displayed over the past eight years. They must question the entire political system. It is not "who" would've been better, but rather, "what" should have been and what still should be changed about our current electoral process and political hierarchy. I believe that regardless of who was elected in 2000, the government would have created a scenario allowing the invasion of a country for limited natural resources and profit.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by SpasticGoose on April 25th, 2010
I don't think bush was a good president but I don't think bush is a bad president because when 9/11 happened people were all for going to war and as you can see in his state of the union address everyone applauses him but as humans we grow impatient and when we do we want out. It isn't as easy as moving a car across a street as he says in his speech this will not be a short war it will be long and it wont be like cosavo when no american lives were lost. If any one is responsible for going to war it was congress the president CAN NOT declare war only congress can this was established in 1973 after the vietnam war. Those are my points comment on them as you please.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by shady on January 19th, 2009
I would have voted for McCain 8 years ago
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by osolo71 on January 23rd, 2009
I think he's great. I perceive him as mature, measured, fun, resolute, hard working, visionary, knowledgeable, thoughtful and kind.

He'll be remembered as a leader, unafraid to keep to his principals, who commanded the respect of a military that went out and changed the world.

The alternatives would have been Gore....and Kerry....both leaders, in my opinion, are too easily distracted by the mood of the moment. Ideals and convictions are not things that should be easily swayed.

Great President in my opinion.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by beasmo99 on July 19th, 2009
I don't think he was a good president. I think he abused the UNBELIEVABLE public backing he had post 9/11 and used it to break laws that ALL of us are accountable under. Having said that, I don't know who better of the possible candidates could have handled the situations W faced. He had alot of crap on his plate and I truly believe he was simple minded and did the best he could based on what his advisors "advised" him to do. I think his advisors are MORE culpable than him...I think he was a figure head in the truest sense.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by SpasticGoose on April 25th, 2010
I don't think that George bush was the best president ever but i don't think he was the worst. people now say that we should have never went to war against the taliban but when 9/11 hit every one was for war. Everyone one supported it but as time grew on people began frustrated and who do we blame first the president when he said in the first place this will not be a short war. Also the president CAN NOT declare war Congress must formally declare war. So if you are going to blame anyone for being at war it is congress not bush.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by Moongrim on July 21st, 2009
No.

Jacques Clouseau would've been hard pressed to do worse.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by FairLady on July 21st, 2009
Yes he has been a good one. The absolutely best in American history was Ronald Reagan, in my opinion.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by Anonymous on March 14th, 2009
Yes, of course. He did the right things no matter what politics you follow.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by Anonymous on March 4th, 2009
Listen ok look at it this way... you figure would you rather have them come over here and keep attacking our innocent people... men and women signed up for this war for a reason and that was to fight and protect our country. which is exactly what bush has done. there have been no terriost attacks around this area since 9-11. Now i have family that are in the army and the mariens so dont think im saying stuff about them... but I'm telling you that if we had not gone to war.. there may be no U.S.A today. Now i dont agree with the fact that we are still fighting over there but we have our reason and what ever they are it dont matter to me as long as the fight stays there and not on my home land.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink

Question

Has George W. Bush been a good president and if not, who would have been better?

Answers. 45 helpful answers below.

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Did this answer your question? If not, then ask a new question or create a poll.

More Questions. Additional questions in this category.

Follow us on Facebook!

Related Ads

Related Questions

Professionally Researched

ANSWERBAG BUZZ

Answerbag.com Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!

Answerbag.com
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!