[peeb]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Nixon gave us the EPA

And Bush tried to take it away.

[tie]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

On the other hand, GW has a full staff of yes men but he has stupid ideas, rather than criminal ideas. He managed to do stuff that looks criminal and may wind up being criminal, but those aren't so much his idea as ideas he bought into.

But whether or not his ideas were criminal, they were much more damaging to the country. More Americans have died in Iraq than in the (unrelated except in W's vivid imagination) 9/11 attacks. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died because of our invasion. It is really remarkable how much damage one really bad leader can do. Bin Laden should have gone into politics.

[peeb]

Yes, Bush has certainly harmed the US much more than Bin Laden was able to.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Is that worse than Nixon's secret bombings in Cambodia and Laos?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster 

Was there ever a great president. Maybe the one that ever came close was Roosevelt Greer. just kidding I meant Delano Roosevelt.

Three words: Executive Order 9066

[paul w]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

If Clinton had been any sort of leader, he'd have actually used troops to find and destroy Al Quida instead of lobbing cruise missiles at facilities that could be easily abandoned before he got his act sufficiently together to give any sort of order.

While I hate the way the Clinton administration (and others) dealt with crisis and military intevntion at the time, I have no recollection of any other politicians or members of government clamoring for troops on the ground in Afghanistan or elsewhere at the time.

I'm not saying it wouldn't have been effective - I don't claim to know, nor am I accusing you of a certain hindsight in your arguments, but to blame Clinton for a nation's lack of forsight is easy and pointless.

What's worse, as the threat developed, and became clearer to us, we willfully focused on Iraq - from day one by many accounts. If you accuse Clinton for neglecting Al Qaeda early, what the hell does that say about Bush. "Oh well, too late, it was Clinton's fault"? C'mon...

[peeb]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Three words: Executive Order 9066

That was one of the lowest points of US history.

[nonhuman]

On that, I hope, we can all agree.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Is that worse than Nixon's secret bombings in Cambodia and Laos?

Or the Gulf of Tonkin

[Uncle Skeleton]

That wasn't Nixon; I was asking in what ways is Bush worse than Nixon

[peeb]

I don't know that it would be very productive to list the crimes of each, that has been done many times. The negative impacts are likewise difficult to attach firm values to. Ultimately which is worse is a matter of how you value different things like civil liberties, the economy, US soldiers lives and the lives of civilians.

[Uncle Skeleton]

I'm not asking you to choose between the two, I'm only asking: what are the ways that Bush has been worse than Nixon? If the only bad things Bush has done are the exact same things that Nixon did even worse (or the same), that would answer my question.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by paul w 

While I hate the way the Clinton administration (and others) dealt with crisis and military intevntion at the time, I have no recollection of any other politicians or members of government clamoring for troops on the ground in Afghanistan or elsewhere at the time.

I'm not saying it wouldn't have been effective - I don't claim to know, nor am I accusing you of a certain hindsight in your arguments, but to blame Clinton for a nation's lack of forsight is easy and pointless.

What's worse, as the threat developed, and became clearer to us, we willfully focused on Iraq - from day one by many accounts. If you accuse Clinton for neglecting Al Qaeda early, what the hell does that say about Bush. "Oh well, too late, it was Clinton's fault"? C'mon...

There were and still are military assets that could have interdicted al Quaida and bin Laden himself if the CiC had possessed both guts and leadership to use them. Oh, and taking a "sworn enemy" of the United States seriously, even if he didn't look like a Soviet would have helped too. Bill missed that one too. Sure, the Pres isn't supposed to start out being up to speed on all the minutia of all the various world crises (there's always a few boiling over), but with the way the Middle East was spinning throughout his presidency, he had many chances to take useful action and failed to do so.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Is that worse than Nixon's secret bombings in Cambodia and Laos?

Secretly bombing Cambodia and Laos makes it sound like he was ordering the bombing of civilian areas-farms and cities-in those two countries. He ordered bombing of Viet Cong hiding places and safe conduct corridors, not cities. They were acting outside the norms of war, and he reciprocated. Not nice, but war is never nice. Probably not at all legal, either. Compared to the way VC treated Vietnamese peasants though, those bombings were love taps.

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Or the Gulf of Tonkin

The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was an epic story of miscommunication, capitalization of "the potential of this event", and the president's desire to force a decisive end to the hostilities. Johnson started out following JFK's setup (which was itself based on Eisenhower's handling of the region, which was based on Truman's-and if we'd just told the French that they stuck their tails between their legs and headed for Paris when the Japanese invaded and Ho had actually pounded the Imperial Japanese into mush so he'd earned independence from European Colonialism, we wouldn't have had the problem in the first place). His real mistake was to promise "bombs and butter"; to NOT have the war impact home life. If people had taken the war seriously at home, there would have been a lot of debate and maybe a national consensus. As it was, it wasn't real to most people. So Johnson thought caring for the American people was more important than a decisive effort in Vietnam. Like Truman had done in Korea. And both had real reason to fear that the Soviets or China or both would take advantage of a real commitment of corps after corps of troops and invade Germany, South Korea, or somewhere else.

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Three words: Executive Order 9066

Different times produce different answers. Just like the slave trade, the genocide of the native Americans on and on...

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster 

Different times produce different answers. Just like the slave trade, the genocide of the native Americans on and on...

Yes, but if we don't acknowledge both that they happened and that they were bad answers we aren't going to learn much from them and maybe won't avoid making the same mistakes again in the future.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Yes, but if we don't acknowledge both that they happened and that they were bad answers we aren't going to learn much from them and maybe won't avoid making the same mistakes again in the future.

I think everybody acknowledges those were bad answers, no?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Secretly bombing Cambodia and Laos makes it sound like he was ordering the bombing of civilian areas-farms and cities-in those two countries. He ordered bombing of Viet Cong hiding places and safe conduct corridors, not cities. They were acting outside the norms of war, and he reciprocated.

Ok, but couldn't the same be said for invading Iraq? I'm just asking for someone to please make the case for how Bush has done anything that is worse than what Nixon did. It doesn't even have to be a winning case, I'm just curious because for anyone to say Bush is "without question far worse than Nixon" there must at least be some case to be made. And the harder it's being to drag that answer out of the group, the more intrigued I'm getting.

[peeb]

OK Uncle, let's take some things pretty much at random:

Bush has eroded US civil liberties far more than Nixon did.
Bush spied on more Americans than Nixon did.
I'm not aware that Nixon supported torture.
Nixon did not detain people without charge.
Bush has lied to the US people more than Nixon did.


While Nixon did some terrible things, he did do some good things, like open relations with China and found the EPA. I cannot think of anything that Bush did that ranks up there with the best of Nixon.

Really the only place Nixon is worse than Bush is in the absolute number of American deaths on his watch.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by peeb 

I think everybody acknowledges those were bad answers, no?

In theory. But Atomic Rooster's reply of 'different times produce different answers' is a sort of implicit validation of the choices we made in the past. Different times do produce different answers, but some of those answers are wrong.

[peeb]

As an aside:

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Ok, but couldn't the same be said for invading Iraq? I'm just asking for someone to please make the case for how Bush has done anything that is worse than what Nixon did. It doesn't even have to be a winning case, I'm just curious because for anyone to say Bush is "without question far worse than Nixon" there must at least be some case to be made. And the harder it's being to drag that answer out of the group, the more intrigued I'm getting.

Nixon inherited our presence in Southeast Asia. Iraq is all Bush's baby.

[Uncle Skeleton]

It's not valid to compare a whole region with a country:

"Bush inherited our presence in the middle east. Cambodia and Laos were Nixon's babies."

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It's not valid to compare a whole region with a country:

"Bush inherited our presence in the middle east. Cambodia and Laos were Nixon's babies."

Apart from the fact that Bush did not inherit a war in the Middle East, while Nixon did inherit one in Asia.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by subego 

Nixon inherited our presence in Southeast Asia. Iraq is all Bush's baby.

Yeah, cause Clinton sure did a great job keeping Saddam Hussein to his post-Desert Storm agreements of disarmament.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Yeah, cause Clinton sure did a great job keeping Saddam Hussein to his post-Desert Storm agreements of disarmament.

I'm not sure who you're rolling you eyes at. It shouldn't be at me.

I chose the term "presence" specifically because, as you point out, we did not have a presence there under Clinton.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It's not valid to compare a whole region with a country:

Uhh.

Your question implied you were interested in peoples thought processes, your response seems to demonstrate a much bigger interest in arguing.

I'll argue witcha about this, but drop the "I'm just trying to understand" part.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by subego 

Nixon inherited our presence in Southeast Asia. Iraq is all Bush's baby.

Wrong!!!!

Iraq is Carters mess. 100%

[subego]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

Wrong!!!!

Iraq is Carters mess. 100%

Again. I used the word "presence" for a reason.

[Uncle Skeleton]

I'm not arguing, in fact I think of myself as pretty uninformed altogether on this topic (which is why I was interested in getting some info on the "bush is the worst" side). But that doesn't mean an answer that makes no sense is going to satisfy. The US was stuck in a "situation" in SEA long before Nixon, and has been stuck in a "situation" in the middle east for far longer than that. Nixon stuck us in deeper by expanding into Laos and Cambodia (for arguably necessary reasons), and Bush stuck us in deeper by expanding into Afghanistan and Iraq (for arguably necessary reasons). Do you have an explanation for why Bush's moves were so much worse, other than that they're a more recent memory?

[peeb]

Nixon did not choose the war in SE Asia. He escalated it, sure, but it was not a complete war of choice for him. The war in Iraq was entirely Bush's choice.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Yeah, cause Clinton sure did a great job keeping Saddam Hussein to his post-Desert Storm agreements of disarmament.

That's irrelevant to the question at hand. You can't say, "Hey, Clinton made some poor decisions, so Bush can be excused for responding with much worse decisions."

[peeb]

Actually, though, Clinton certainly did well enough. Saddam was entirely controlled at the end of the Clinton administration and posed no serious threat to the US.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I'm not arguing, in fact I think of myself as pretty uninformed altogether on this topic (which is why I was interested in getting some info on the "bush is the worst" side). But that doesn't mean an answer that makes no sense is going to satisfy. The US was stuck in a "situation" in SEA long before Nixon, and has been stuck in a "situation" in the middle east for far longer than that. Nixon stuck us in deeper by expanding into Laos and Cambodia (for arguably necessary reasons), and Bush stuck us in deeper by expanding into Afghanistan and Iraq (for arguably necessary reasons). Do you have an explanation for why Bush's moves were so much worse, other than that they're a more recent memory?

My apologies. I misunderstood your question.

The differences between them seem to me (I'm too young to remember Nixon first hand) to be wholly based in how they went about things.

Bush's style actually seems to have a whole lot more in common with Johnson. Trumped-up charges. Insular. Unwilling to admit failure or brook people who did so.

Nixon took some big risks. They failed, and he took responsibility for their failure, at least in the sense that he officially (if not practically) ended hostilities.

I mean, Nixon won reelection on a pro-war platform.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Wasn't Bush also reelected on a pro-war platform?

If I'm understanding you right, you're saying Bush is worse for not officially ending hostilities? What about "mission accomplished?"

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

If I'm understanding you right, you're saying Bush is worse for not officially ending hostilities?

I'm actually trying to separate individual decisions made in the present and made 40 years ago (which don't seem ideal candidates for comparison) from their respective characters.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Wait, character is what makes a president good or bad? Not performance?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Wait, character is what makes a president good or bad? Not performance?

80% of the "rate the Presidents" game is determining judgement criteria.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Saddam was entirely controlled at the end of the Clinton administration and posed no serious threat to the US.

I can't agree with that. He was actively subverting the representatives of a number of nations as well as the UN OPil for Food program, and instead of saying "Go ahead and search anywhere you want-you won't find any of those pesky WMDs", he played the game of "I have nothing to hide, but you can't look for yourself." A whole lot of people figured he DID have something to hide, and not just the CIA and George's boys. It was just too lucrative for them to play nice with Saddam for them to care what he actually had up his sleeve. HIS OWN GENERALS thought he had gas or nukes hiding somewhere-from his domestic enemies and from people who might want to become his domestic enemies. So NOW we know that if he had any weapons, he hid them so well even HE coludn't find them, but then we could not be certain, and neither could the UN. With the French and Russians actively helping him out (by subverting Oil for Food), it wasn't a big stretch to expect that they were helping him with something else too. And this shell game was going on while Bill was in office. He didn't do anything but try to contain Saddam-and failed at that because Saddam punished his own people with the sanctions while enriching himself mightily in the process. Bill didn't drop the ball-he never had his hands near it.

[Chongo]

[peeb]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I can't agree with that. He was actively subverting the representatives of a number of nations as well as the UN OPil for Food program, and instead of saying "Go ahead and search anywhere you want-you won't find any of those pesky WMDs", he played the game of "I have nothing to hide, but you can't look for yourself." A whole lot of people figured he DID have something to hide, and not just the CIA and George's boys. It was just too lucrative for them to play nice with Saddam for them to care what he actually had up his sleeve. HIS OWN GENERALS thought he had gas or nukes hiding somewhere-from his domestic enemies and from people who might want to become his domestic enemies. So NOW we know that if he had any weapons, he hid them so well even HE coludn't find them, but then we could not be certain, and neither could the UN. With the French and Russians actively helping him out (by subverting Oil for Food), it wasn't a big stretch to expect that they were helping him with something else too. And this shell game was going on while Bill was in office. He didn't do anything but try to contain Saddam-and failed at that because Saddam punished his own people with the sanctions while enriching himself mightily in the process. Bill didn't drop the ball-he never had his hands near it.

Come on, you know you're seriously over reaching with this argument. It's likely to derail the thread if you try to claim that "Saddam was so dangerous to the US that we had to invade" when everyone knows that this is not true. Start a new thread for that rabbit hole. Anyway, I agree that on the metric of number of US soldiers needlessly killed Nixon is worse than Bush. It's just that Bush plucked the pointless cause that they were to die for from thin air, while Nixon had it handed to him.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

80% of the "rate the Presidents" game is determining judgement criteria.

Yes that's true. But I was pretty sure that character would rate a lot further down the list than things like performance. Especially since earlier in this thread Chuckit summed up your position (that Bush is worse than Nixon) by saying that Nixon's low appeal was because of his "scummy" character, not because of especially bad job performance, a description that certainly fits well with all the characterizations of Nixon since his presidency (which I wasn't around to see, so the characterizations are all I have to go on). So hopefully you understand my confusion to hear you place character more important AND to put Nixon's character above Bush's.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Come on, you know you're seriously over reaching with this argument. It's likely to derail the thread if you try to claim that "Saddam was so dangerous to the US that we had to invade" when everyone knows that this is not true. Start a new thread for that rabbit hole. Anyway, I agree that on the metric of number of US soldiers needlessly killed Nixon is worse than Bush. It's just that Bush plucked the pointless cause that they were to die for from thin air, while Nixon had it handed to him.

I'm not saying he was so dangerous we had to invade. I AM saying that he was not cowed at all, nor was he no threat. He worked very hard at LOOKING like a threat. Now that "everybody knows" what was really happening in Iraq before the invasion, perhaps someone could explain why he bothered to have those mobile lab trucks cleaned so thoroughly too... But that's another derail.

My point is that Clinton could have been much more assertive, pushed ACTION by the UN instead of those pesky sanctions that only hurt civilians there, and actually done something. Instead, he put a lot of GIs at risk, particularly Airmen-there were hundreds of combat flights every week over northern and southern Iraq enforcing resolutions that told Saddam to back off and not push people into the marshes or mountains. Again. Bill earned that gray hair, but the wrong way. Having never served a day in his life (I'm not talking about elected office), he used the military with an air of superiority over those people who were putting their lives on the line.. At least George spent time in uniform, not that this has any bearing on his actions as a commander. He salutes correctly and doesn't seem to behave superiorly to GIs he meets individually, which is a major improvement over Clinton's behavior.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

My point is that Clinton could have been much more assertive.

So let me get this straight, your justification for why Bush is better than Nixon is that Clinton screwed up?

[peeb]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

At least George spent time in uniform,

That's pretty much all you can say about his 'service' in the military. I think much more relevant than wether he can salute properly is that Clinton was extremely concerned about putting US service lives in danger. Bush seems utterly reckless.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by peeb 

So let me get this straight, your justification for why Bush is better than Nixon is that Clinton screwed up?

I wasn't comparing Bill to Dick. I was commenting on your statement that Saddam "didn't pose a threat." Context; it's a wonderful thing.

Originally Posted by peeb 

That's pretty much all you can say about his 'service' in the military. I think much more relevant than wether he can salute properly is that Clinton was extremely concerned about putting US service lives in danger. Bush seems utterly reckless.

George was a pilot. Of the F106. That is not what you'd call a "skate job." Fighter pilots (and even people that are merely fighter operators) HAVE TO respect their ground crews, work well in groups, and follow a given plan. George's problem is that he had the education and training of a business executive, and hiring yes men doesn't work in government. His "advisors" told him invading was a good thing, it fit his ideas, and he went with it. Perfect CEO material. BAD president.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I wasn't comparing Bill to Dick. I was commenting on your statement that Saddam "didn't pose a threat." Context; it's a wonderful thing.

This was in the context of a discussion about who was the worse President, Nixon or Bush. Reading the whole thread before commenting. It's a wonderful thing.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

George was a pilot. Of the F106. That is not what you'd call a "skate job." Fighter pilots (and even people that are merely fighter operators)

That was virtually a training plane, that pretty much guaranteed you would not see active service at the time W flew it, when he showed up, that is.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

HAVE TO respect their ground crews, work well in groups, and follow a given plan...

Well those are not behaviours he displayed in office...

Originally Posted by ghporter 

George's problem is that he had the education and training of a business executive, and hiring yes men doesn't work in government. His "advisors" told him invading was a good thing, it fit his ideas, and he went with it. Perfect CEO material.

Except the companies he was CEO of went bankrupt...

Originally Posted by ghporter 

BAD president.

Yes, but the question is "is he a worse president than Nixon?

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by peeb 

It's a wonderful thing.

I really did deserve that. I had thought I'd been specific enough to make my more confined context clear. Sorry.

Originally Posted by peeb 

That was virtually a training plane, that pretty much guaranteed you would not see active service at the time W flew it, when he showed up, that is.

The F106 was anything BUT a "training plane." A supersonic interceptor DESIGNED to chase down Soviet bombers over the Arctic, kill them with a BIG nuke and then allow the pilot to bail out (still over the Arctic).

Now to be fair, he flew for the Texas Air Guard, and was not likely to actually ever have to DO that, but that doesn't make the plane any easier to handle, nor does that make him any less attentive to the team that supports it.

Originally Posted by peeb 

Well those are not behaviours he displayed in office...

Very true. But he's still not some "I'm superior" jerk when he's dealing with GIs individually. Ever see Bill present a medal? Me neither...

Originally Posted by peeb 

Except the companies he was CEO of went bankrupt...

Yep, most of 'em did. But that didn't keep other boards of directors from hiring a Harvard-educated business major with connections. Sort of how he got elected, too.

Originally Posted by peeb 

Yes, but the question is "is he a worse president than Nixon?

I think their presidencies are about on a par-Nixon managed to suck at domestic matters, subverted the Constitution for PERSONAL GAIN, muddled through ending a war he promised to bring to a "speedy conclusion" and had only one good thing-opening diplomatic relations with China. W. showed promise through hiring good people (whom he subsequently misused or ignored), and for a few months there in 2001 he looked like he was going to get both sides of the aisle to STFU and work for the people. Then these nasty guys killed a bunch of people and that changed everything. George blew the chance to unite the whole world against al Quaida, alienated most countries by invading Iraq instead of exposing Saddam's diplomatic puppets, and then nodded his head when a lot of his "advisors" with their own agendas fed him ideas about protecting America by destroying the very core of what it is that makes America strong.

Let's see: opening relations with China balances with getting (earlier than any other president I know of) non-partisan cooperation in both houses of Congress. Dick's abysmal domestic record, and then the whole Watergate thing for his own power trip balances with No Child Left Behind and business-oriented metrics for schools, and then agreeing that American citizens aren't trustworthy so we need Big Brother listening into EVERYTHING. Escalating the war in Southeast Asia balances with starting an unnecessary war in Southwest Asia AND detracting from a really necessary action nearby (Afghanistan-remember that? The Taliban are still there and still hoping to bring America and all of the West to our knees). Yep, I think they're equally bad. Differently, but equally bad.

And I promise I'll keep the spirit of the whole thread in mind if I post here again. Really.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Yes that's true. But I was pretty sure that character would rate a lot further down the list than things like performance. Especially since earlier in this thread Chuckit summed up your position (that Bush is worse than Nixon) by saying that Nixon's low appeal was because of his "scummy" character, not because of especially bad job performance, a description that certainly fits well with all the characterizations of Nixon since his presidency (which I wasn't around to see, so the characterizations are all I have to go on). So hopefully you understand my confusion to hear you place character more important AND to put Nixon's character above Bush's.

Bush's character impinges on his job performance. When he makes a mistake, his deficiencies in character drive him to make worse mistakes.

This wasn't the case with Nixon.

The reason I'm focusing on character is because the gears are grinding on your assertion that Invasion: Laos can be directly compared to Invasion: Iraq, or that withdrawing from Vietnam can be directly compared to withdrawing from Iraq. They can't.

But, taking cues from their respective characters, you can easily place them in the shoes of the other.

Imagine the results of Vietnam with someone in charge who was compelled to plow himself deeper the more he ****ed up. As I said, you don't have to imagine it, that's exactly the way Johnson behaved.

I will leave imagining the results of Iraq with someone in charge who is describable by the phrase "not especially bad job-performance" as an exercise for the reader.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Carter.. hmmm.. not my president so who cares. However, by thinking he can broker a peace or even the start of a peace process in the Middle East, shows that he truly is stupid.

Alternatively he's bored or up to something else.