Re: Rating the Presidents Re: Bush's brand new enemy is the truth
On Mar 30, 2004, at 9:04 AM, John D. Giorgis wrote: At 05:44 AM 3/30/2004 -0800 Richard Baker wrote: JDG said: By whom?Under the usual standards that Presidents rate such things, I expect that he will be placed near or at the top of one-term Presidents if he loses re-election. Regardless of Bush Jr's merits, he surely doesn't compare favourably with Bush Sr, who skillfully managed the crisis in the global order caused by the collapse of the Soviet Union and even fought a war against Iraq with the backing of most of the rest of the world (and even with French troops!). But that last point is not one of the criteria on which Presidents are usually judged. That is, we usually do not judge our Presidents by the popularity of their policies in France and Syria. (both part of the first Gulf War coalition) At any rate, a similar case for George W. Bush's first term would be: "skillfully managed the crisis caused by September 11th, led a spectacularly successful War in Afghanistan (it is worth remembering how much doubt surrounded the Afghan campaign in mid-September of 2001), and fought a war in Iraq to completion with the support of the vast majority of the world's industrialized democracies." This surely compares quite favorably in the eyes of history to George H. W. Bush's term. In addition, George H. W. Bush will certainly be remembered for presiding over the mildest recession in modern US history, despite taking office following the popping of an asset bubble, and maintaining high levels of overall employment, GDP growth, and productivity growth during that time.(Bush will also benefit in these ratings because budget deficits tend not to be considered as very important in these ratings. For example, Franklin Roosevelt rates extremely highly by historians, despite creating Social Security.) Successfully leading the coalition that defeated the Axis Powers during World War 2 has a great deal to do with FDR's high rating. john ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Rating the Presidents Re: Bush's brand new enemy is the truth
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 06:30:42PM -, iaamoac wrote: > The elements that are "still in progress," are elements that in the > judgement of history would merely be icing on the cake beyond the > goals which the war has already accomplished. If Taliban and al-Qaeda are icing, that must be some awful cake! "The Taliban is regrouping and al-Qaeda is still present inside the country and the tribal areas along the border with Pakistan." -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Rating the Presidents Re: Bush's brand new enemy is the truth
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 09:04:06AM -0500, John D. Giorgis wrote: > led a spectacularly successful War in Afghanistan "spectacularly successful"? It's not over yet by a longshot, much too soon to call it a success. At best, it is a work in progress. *** http://makeashorterlink.com/?T641253E7 Afghan challenge Financial Times; Mar 30, 2004 Just over two years after the fall of the Taliban, a United Nations report warns that Afghanistan is again in danger of relapsing into a failed state - only this time fired by a well-fuelled drugs economy. The Taliban is regrouping and al-Qaeda is still present inside the country and the tribal areas along the border with Pakistan. Fortunately, there is an opportunity to discuss all this at this week's international donors' conference in Berlin. This may be the last opportunity to set Afghanistan on a path towards stability and modest but self-sustaining prosperity - provided everyone realises what is at stake. The UN Development Programme report, drawn up for the Berlin meeting, makes revealing comparisons with other post-conflict countries to show that Iraq gets about 10 times as much aid as Afghanistan despite having roughly the same population size, while Bosnia and East Timor get nearly four times more aid per capita. Yet it was Afghanistan, reduced to a shell by the war against the Soviet occupation in the 1980s and the chronic civil conflict that followed in the 1990s, that served as the safe haven for the Islamist hyper-terrorism of Osama bin Laden. Have we learnt nothing? There are achievements to point to. Since the fall of the Taliban and the Bonn conference two years ago, for example, literally millions of Afghan refugees have returned. Two Loya Jirgas have managed to elect a president and ratify a constitution. Against that, however, the writ of President Hamid Karzai barely extends beyond Kabul. The power of the warlords and militia leaders the US overly relied on remains entrenched - and financed by an opium trade that has spread from 14 to 28 provinces in the past two years, generating about $2bn (£1.1bn) or half the country's gross domestic product. The easily accomplished defeat of the Taliban was only the beginning of the job. What is needed now is a development agenda, a big investment in nation-building. If Afghanistan were an ordinary development problem, it would be a massive task, rivalling the challenge of the poorest parts of sub-Saharan Africa. The UNDP's call for a carefully structured seven-year programme, with commitments of $27.6bn, is of a scale with the challenge. Patient institution-building (including through elections now postponed until September), the replacement of drugs by sustainable economic activity and the restoration of security through disarming the private armies and creating a national army will take at least that amount of time and money. The portents for this week's conference are not too bad. George W. Bush is looking for a foreign policy success to crown his re-election campaign and, at the moment, Afghanistan looks more plausible than Iraq. He should get strong allied support if he uses this occasion to create a new impetus behind reform - fundamental change that eventually replaces the rule of the gun with the rule of law. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Rating the Presidents Re: Bush's brand new enemy is the truth
At 08:32 AM 30/03/04 -0500, you wrote: At 06:55 PM 3/29/2004 -0500 Keith Henson wrote: > Bush is considered to be (and >might be) the worst president in US history. By whom? Google Results 1 - 10 of about 1,080 for "worst president in US history" Bush. (0.22 seconds) to be fair, Google Results 1 - 10 of about 820 for "worst president in US history" Clinton. (0.45 seconds) Of course to get names you would really have to read into the links. Under the usual standards that Presidents rate such things, I expect that he will be placed near or at the top of one-term Presidents if he loses re-election. (If he wins re-election, it is obviously too soon to tell, with less than half his Presidency elapsed so far.) In a lot of ways the social trends such as Enron type corruption and US income distribution becoming like 3rd world countries was a trend long before Bush came to office. The lost of civil rights, putting the US much deeper into debt, and whatever long lasting effects come from the Iraq adventure can be ascribed to Bush. Of course, protection of civil rights in the US was not doing well before Bush came to office. Stick my name in Google if you want to see how the scientology cult corrupted the DA's office and the courts to get me convicted of "interfering with a religion." Keith Henson ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Rating the Presidents Re: Bush's brand new enemy is the truth
At 05:44 AM 3/30/2004 -0800 Richard Baker wrote: >JDG said: >> By whom?Under the usual standards that Presidents rate such >> things, I expect that he will be placed near or at the top of >> one-term Presidents if he loses re-election. > >Regardless of Bush Jr's merits, he surely doesn't compare favourably >with Bush Sr, who skillfully managed the crisis in the global order >caused by the collapse of the Soviet Union and even fought a war against >Iraq with the backing of most of the rest of the world (and even with >French troops!). But that last point is not one of the criteria on which Presidents are usually judged. That is, we usually do not judge our Presidents by the popularity of their policies in France and Syria. (both part of the first Gulf War coalition) At any rate, a similar case for George W. Bush's first term would be: "skillfully managed the crisis caused by September 11th, led a spectacularly successful War in Afghanistan (it is worth remembering how much doubt surrounded the Afghan campaign in mid-September of 2001), and fought a war in Iraq to completion with the support of the vast majority of the world's industrialized democracies." This surely compares quite favorably in the eyes of history to George H. W. Bush's term. In addition, George H. W. Bush will certainly be remembered for presiding over the mildest recession in modern US history, despite taking office following the popping of an asset bubble, and maintaining high levels of overall employment, GDP growth, and productivity growth during that time.(Bush will also benefit in these ratings because budget deficits tend not to be considered as very important in these ratings. For example, Franklin Roosevelt rates extremely highly by historians, despite creating Social Security.) Thus, I wonder, by whom would George W. Bush be rated one of the worst in history?Is it by someone (i.e. a historian) who has expertise in rating such things? Or is it some partisan hack? Again, under the usual standards, winning re-election is rated very highly, so to this point we could only compare George W. Bush to other one-term Presidents based on an assumption of a loss in Novemeber, since that is the only extent to which we have data available. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Rating the Presidents Re: Bush's brand new enemy is the truth
JDG said: > By whom?Under the usual standards that Presidents rate such > things, I expect that he will be placed near or at the top of > one-term Presidents if he loses re-election. Regardless of Bush Jr's merits, he surely doesn't compare favourably with Bush Sr, who skillfully managed the crisis in the global order caused by the collapse of the Soviet Union and even fought a war against Iraq with the backing of most of the rest of the world (and even with French troops!). Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
