President George W. Bush Was Not A Good President!

Number one, it isnt copied and pasted. So that accusation is false. Number 2, he was ranked lower on the scale, but I would like to see any one predident maintain that record for 3 months. I almost doubt they could. He was a good leader. So those scholars ranked him 39th what? In leader ship, or somethign else. You need to specify before I deny this. You are blaming bush on everything with no reasoning whatsoever. You need to take into consideration the wars. This is the hardest point for me do defend. He did invade afghanistan for a reason, this cannot be denyed. It was a neccasarry war, maybe not now in some peoples minds but it was neccassary at the time. Iraq was abother war. He listend to the CIA, if you where president and you thought a crazy leader like saddam had a atomig bomb, then you would react similar to bush, I garrentee it. So yjose wars created the deficit, not bush. He did this for a just cause. Well pbviosly he didnt raise the taxes. Extra taxes can't pay for all of that number one, and number 2 raising taxes hurt the economy. His tax cuts saved the first one, and if he rose them we would have gad a double dip ressecion, like we are in danger of today. " During Bush's presidency, jobs only grew 2% and the GDP only grew 2.1%" You blame it all on Bush, as I said you can share the blame. 1. clinton for uselless taxes and regulations that made the first ressecion, and leadong to speeding up the process for the second, 2. The banks, they did most of it, 3. Barney frank, he leader of the housing commite and helped speed up the bubble, and 4. Bush for not recognising the problem. It can't all be Bush, partially but it is rarely one person in our american society. "Manufacturers fell to its lowest level in 26 years." Scource? And also You can still not blame it on him only. It can be shared, it is actually a fair asumption that Clinton made the ressecion. Not the second one as much, but the first one happened right when bush took office and just settled in. So first term blame for this=Clinton. Second term blame= democratic congress, and Bush for signing the bills. So since blame can be shaed you view of Only he did it is quite a fallacy. "78% of all debate.org members are against George W. Bush! " That acctually means nothing because approval means little. To some obama is great and his approval ranges from 30% to 39%. Here is a site showing that Bush is not the worst president: http://www.infoplease.com... shows the approval ratings of each. He had the highest approval on there, and not the lowest. Nixon and truman Are both worse than him, and Jimmy carter as too. He is equal to his dad in the lowest approval rating tied at 29%. So even if approval ratings in your mind matter, then he is still not the worst predsdent ever, and was THE BEST at one point. Also you probably agree with me, abraham lincolon was a good president. His approval ratings where never good because he won with 40% of the vote, and the south attacked him, and almost lost his second election. So do approval ratings really matter? You also didnt push forward the case on policing the world, probably because you saw policing afganistan was needed, and we have basically saved them. And also you fail to argue against my economy argument with any reason. Also going back to the economy, If you look at my scources it proves that clinton was not a good president and he is partially to blame for this mess. The other elements lead to what is now some sort of 'mortgatge crisis'. Again, liberal polices were to blame, and we can not link these outcomes to conservatism. (1) Recessions are natural and beneficial if not caused by the government or attacked in a Keynesian manner. This recession would destroy a few failing companies and open the market to new companies and small businesses that will perhaps be more successful. In this manner, by opening up the markets for expansion, the markets grow and improv (1) Yes they are benificial in the long run becasue we learn from our mistakes through history...sometimes. So if you read the debate below they link everything to liberal policies, which may or may not be true. But I do dissagree with the site below, he is economically moderate, and I think his only mistake when it came to the economy was signing liberal bills, and so far you have failed prove me otherwise. Scources: http://www.debate.org...;(1)